Ensuring Quality Vocational and Higher Education in Lithuania

5. Institutional capacity and supports for pedagogical enhancement and innovation in higher education and VET in Lithuania

Abstract

This chapter analyses trends in institutional practices to promote quality teaching and learning and the enhancement of VET and higher education provision in Lithuania, as well as the wider eco-system of organisations and initiatives that support pedagogical enhancement and innovation. It provides recommendations on how Lithuania can strengthen its eco-system of supports for pedagogical enhancement and innovation in VET and higher education.

5.1.  Analysis of institutional capacity and supports for pedagogical enhancement and innovation in Lithuanian higher education and VET

This section analyses the wider eco-system of policies and practices that support the quality enhancement of teaching and learning within higher education and vocational education and training (VET) in Lithuania. It starts by considering the role played by VET and higher education providers themselves in promoting quality and innovation in teaching, and then turns to the system-level organisations and initiatives that support pedagogical innovation and enhancement in Lithuania.

5.1.1 Institutional capacity and practices for quality management and pedagogical innovation

This section starts by offering a brief overview of the development of VET and higher education providers’ internal quality assurance systems in Lithuania and then reviews key trends in the practices of VET and higher education providers aimed at improving teaching and learning quality, drawing on findings from a fact-finding mission to Lithuania carried out by the OECD team in March 2024 (see Table A.1., Annex A).

In many institutions, especially colleges and VET providers, internal quality assurance systems are still in the early stages of development

In line with other VET and higher education systems internationally, Lithuanian law entrusts primary responsibility for the quality assurance of teaching and learning to individual institutions. Article 40 of the Higher Education and Research Act states that “higher education and research institutions shall be responsible for the quality of research (artistic) activities, education and other activities” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]). Likewise, Article 22 of the VET Act states that “vocational training providers are responsible for the quality of vocational training and other activities [... and] foster a culture of vocational training quality” [translated from Lithuanian] (Republic of Lithuania, 2017[2]). While both VET and higher education providers have the freedom to choose how they design their internal quality assurance (QA) systems, legislation requires VET providers to follow the “European Quality Assurance Framework for VET (EQAVET)” (Council of the EU, 2009[3]) and, in the case of higher education institutions (HEIs), the “European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education” (ESG) (ENQA, 2015[4]).

Many VET and higher education institutions have only recently established internal quality management systems

The first real impetus for the development of internal QA systems in VET and higher education came in 2011 as part of the government’s National Education Programme (Republic of Lithuania, 2007[5]). As part of this programme, the then active Ministry of Education and Science funded several projects to support the development of internal quality management systems in VET and higher education, choosing ISO 9001 as the basis (ISO, 2024[6]). Between 2011-12, 19 HEIs and 79 VET providers benefited from the programme to develop an internal quality management system based on ISO 9001 (Kasperavičiūtė-Černiauskienė and Serafinas, 2018[7]). Prior to this, only a few Lithuanian HEIs had well-developed institutional quality systems in place. A 2008 survey of 13 universities in Lithuania found that while, at that time, most universities had plans to develop an internal quality assurance system, few had a comprehensive system in place (MOSTA, 2008[8]). Similarly, in VET, very few institutions had internal quality management systems at the start of the 21st century, although there had already been some efforts by the government to support their development. In 2008, an expert group of the VET Methodology Centre – the predecessor of Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC) – prepared guidelines to incentivise self-assessment in VET providers and support the development of their internal quality management systems, but this had limited impact.

In parallel to the “ISO 9001” movement, the European EQAVET and ESG frameworks have acted as a second important driver for the development of internal quality assurance systems in Lithuanian VET and higher education, alongside many other European tools and initiatives. Some HEIs1 have participated in the European University Association’s (EUA) Institutional Evaluation Programme to help improve their internal QA systems (EUA, n.d.[9]). In the VET sector, the EU’s Council Recommendation on a “European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships” functions as an important driver for enhancing the quality of work-based learning (Council of Ministers of the EU, 2018[10]).

In many institutions, highly top-down and procedural approaches to internal quality assurance persist

The recent introduction of internal QA systems in Lithuanian VET and higher education means that many institutions still adopt highly top-down and procedural approaches to internal quality assurance. Research shows that when QA systems are first introduced, institutions often tend to implement them by creating a centralised system or single unit with dedicated responsibility for developing and monitoring the implementation of quality assurance policies (Manatos, Sarrico and Rosa, 2017[11]). As internal QA systems mature, institutions tend to “move away from the existing control framework to a culture creation framework and integrate QA activities into their institutional cultures and everyday practices” (Jung, 2022, p. 12[12]).

In higher education, the stakeholder interviews and site visits conducted by the OECD team show that most HEIs in Lithuania have developed a wide range of quality manuals (or similar documents) and set up various structures or committees at the institutional, faculty and study-programme levels, all of which have a dedicated responsibility and specific functionality for quality assurance. The development of these processes was heavily influenced by the recommendations HEIs received from the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (SKVC). Many HEIs now face challenges with extending their internal QA systems across all operations of the HEI (e.g. administration, governance, leadership, research and community service) and in moving beyond the task of implementing and managing processes. One higher education administrator interviewed by the OECD team described their work as primarily consisting of “managing processes and paperwork instead of engaging in critical analysis supporting institutional leadership and instructors with teaching and learning enhancement”.

In VET schools, QA is typically delivered via routine annual assessments of teacher performance and by the establishment of teacher groups, which are usually organised around specific subjects or professional fields. The annual performance reviews of teachers help to establish performance standards across the previous year, to analyse strengths and review areas for improvement. This establishes the needs for professional development in the coming year. At a broader system level, individual departments also hold staff meetings to discuss performance collectively and review the development needs of the department. Given these processes are largely self-reflexive, individual-based and focused on routine delivery, they may struggle to provide fertile ground for a better-rounded assessment of quality that focuses on enhancement.

Several VET and higher education providers are experimenting with new and innovative study formats to enhance student learning

A first key trend observed by the OECD team is that, despite the existence of legal and quality-assurance-related barriers to programme innovation (see Chapters 3 and 4), several VET and higher education providers are experimenting with new and innovative study formats to enhance student learning. The sections that follow offer examples of some of the pedagogical innovations identified during the fact-finding mission.

Higher education institutions are experimenting with new and innovative study formats to increase study flexibility and relevance

In the higher education sector, several institutions were identified that are pushing legal boundaries to ensure that their offerings respond to the demands of students and employers. Stakeholders from one university visited by the OECD team said that “they do not care about what is written in the law”. For them, the starting point for designing any new study programme is to consider the needs of students and employers. Based on this, the appropriate study format and content is chosen, and “fitted into” the legal requirements. Box 5.1 offers examples from two HEIs visited by the OECD team in March 2024, and how they are experimenting with new and innovative study formats. However, such practices are not common among Lithuanian HEIs. In most HEIs – especially colleges – close adherence to regulatory requirements remains the main approach.

Box 5.1. Examples of experimentation with new and innovative study formats in Lithuanian HEIs

Hybrid master’s programmes at VILNIUS TECH

At VILNIUS TECH, almost all master’s programmes are offered in a hybrid format. This makes it possible for students to follow up to 50% of their programme (primarily theoretical courses) on line. This policy implementation was motivated by a desire to make studying at the university more attractive to adults already working full-time, and to respond to the growing number of international students, many of whom come from outside the European Union and face challenges obtaining a residency permit by the time the academic year starts. Remote learning allows such students to already start their programme while they are still abroad and limits their risk of falling behind.

MA+ competency model at Kaunas Technical University (KTU)

At Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), students can choose to obtain a “MA+ competency” as part of their master’s programme. The model involves students choosing to specialise in either a specific study field or multidisciplinary track while completing a number of courses and work placements delivered by business or public sector partners. Upon successful completion of the “MA+ competency”, students receive an additional KTU certificate, which is added as an appendix to their master’s degree.

Source: VILNIUS TECH (2023[13]), Order on the Organisation and Implementation of the Study Process in 2023-24, https://vilniustech.lt/files/4833/241/12/14_0/Study_process-2023-2024.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024) and KTU (2024[14]), MA+ competences, https://admissions.ktu.edu/master/ma-plus-competences/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).

VET providers are using innovative collaborations with employers, international skills competitions, and financial incentives to boost student engagement and motivation

The OECD team also visited several VET schools that are experimenting with new delivery methods and formats within the highly detailed VET programme and module descriptions. For example, the Business and Hospitality Professional Career Centre (VESK) organises a series of masterclasses for its chef’s training course, where invited national and international chefs (including Michelin-starred chefs) come to the school to demonstrate cookery techniques to students. VESK has also invested in the purchase of new educational technology to improve student and classroom management and reduce administrative burden for teachers. Many VET schools also seek to boost student motivation and engagement by encouraging students to participate in national and international skills competitions (e.g. EuroSkills).

Financial incentives are also available for well-performing students and those with limited means. At a base level, Article 38 of the VET Act provides specific guidelines on material support to VET students (Republic of Lithuania, 2018[15]). The regulations state that learning and social scholarships can be made available to students and free-of-charge study grants for students without a state-funded place. Targeted scholarships are also available to students in designated priority VET programmes, dependent on maintaining a good level of academic achievement. Learning scholarships are provided for good academic performance or participation in designated activities (e.g. participation in national and international skills competitions or activities contributing to the promotion of VET). Social scholarships are provided to individuals who qualify for social benefits, who have some kind of limiting disability or who are from families with caring responsibilities for three of more children. The distribution of this funding to students is managed within schools by a commission that has responsibility for apportioning funding to students. In this sense, the school can dictate the thresholds of academic performance that are required to confer eligibility for scholarships.

Institutions increasingly recognise the importance of investing in the professional learning of teaching staff, but efforts remain concentrated in larger and well-resourced institutions

A second key trend identified is that VET and higher education providers are increasingly recognising the importance of investing in the continuing professional learning of their teaching staff, although such efforts remain concentrated in larger and well-resourced institutions. The sections that follow describe in more detail the main developments observed within the higher education and VET sectors.

In higher education, institutional support for teacher training and pedagogical innovation is slow to develop, and receives less attention and resources than research

In recent years, some Lithuanian HEIs have established a dedicated structure at institution level to support teacher training and pedagogical innovation. Such structures were identified in five HEIs (see Table 5.1), but several other HEIs also reported to the OECD team that they had plans to institutionalise teaching enhancement in the near future. Except the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LSMU), which already had a teaching and learning centre back in 2004, most of these centres were established only in the last five years. This suggests that pedagogical enhancement is only slowly starting to become a priority for Lithuanian HEIs, which contrasts with some other OECD and EU higher education systems where such teaching and learning centres have been in place for quite some time (OECD, 2024[16]). In the Netherlands, the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, almost all HEIs have had learning and teaching centres in place for several years, offering courses, training and guidance at several levels (Zhang, 2022[17]). In Lithuania, a “self-management” approach to supporting teacher training and pedagogical innovation exists.2 Especially in smaller institutions, teaching staff typically do not have access to an institutional offer for professional learning, and professional development is mainly carried out upon the initiative of individual staff.

The activities offered by these teaching and learning centres vary from institution to institution, and also between faculties within institutions. Typically, they develop guidance materials, offer (online) training courses and opportunities for peer learning, and engage in educational research and develop inspiring (online) educational resources. In some institutions, these centres also offer technical support to academic staff that wish to move (part of) their courses online. Box 5.2 describes some of the main activities carried out by three teaching and learning centres.

Table 5.1. Five higher education institutions in Lithuania have established a dedicated centre for teaching and learning

Mapping of teaching and learning centres in Lithuanian higher education institutions, 2024

Provider	Activities carried out
	Year established	Guidance	(Online) training courses	(Online) educational resources	Peer-learning communities	Technical support	Educational research
Kaunas University of Technology	2014	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓
Vytautas Magnus University	2021	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
VILNIUS TECH	2020	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Vilnius University	2020	✓	✓				✓
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences	2004	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Source: Based on stakeholder interviews and a mapping of institutional websites of HEIs in Lithuania.

Box 5.2. Examples of teaching and learning centres in Lithuanian higher education

Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (EDU_LAB), Kaunas Technical University (KTU)

EDU_Lab is KTU’s Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. EDU_LAB was founded in 2014 and has, so far, organised 17 training courses, attracting more than 1 200 KTU staff. The Centre has also produced several guidance materials and best practice resources, and regularly organises “teacher cafés” to facilitate networking and peer learning. EDU_LAB experts also conduct class observations to provide instant feedback to instructors. More recently, KTU has established the “Innovation Education Lab”, to develop new, innovative and evidence-based teaching, learning and assessment practices.

Professional Development Centre, Vytautas Magnus University (VDU)

VDU’s Professional Development Centre was established in 2021 and consists of three academies: the Lecturers' Academy (i.e. training for lecturers), the Professional Development Academy (i.e. training for academic and non-academic staff), and the Lifelong Learning Academy (i.e. training for the public). The centre organises trainings, peer-learning seminars, and offers digital technology support. The Centre’s activities are based on regular needs analyses, drawing on data from external evaluations, programme external evaluations, programme evaluations and surveys carried out by the Studies Department.

Academic Support Centre, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH)

VILNIUS TECH has been organising training for academic staff since 2014, but it was only in 2020 that a dedicated Academic Support Centre was established at institutional level. The Centre offers group and individual counselling to lecturers and students, develops pedagogical materials, and organises “Educational Excellence Seminars” for academic staff. Each year, these seminars attract around 400 participants. Educational researchers working for the centre also support study programme quality committees and organise various peer learning events and an annual teaching award.

Source: Based on a mapping of the institutions’ websites and stakeholder interviews.

In interviews with the OECD team, higher education instructors noted several challenges with engaging in continuing professional learning. A first key challenge is that continuing professional learning is insufficiently recognised by HEIs, for instance in staff appraisals or career advancement. As a result, often only the most motivated instructors actively seek to improve their teaching practices, and not necessarily those who may benefit the most from training or support – a common challenge also observed in many other OECD and EU jurisdictions (OECD, 2024[16]).

To incentivise academic staff to engage in pedagogical competence development, some Lithuanian HEIs have started to introduce requirements on the minimum number of hours academic staff should dedicate to professional learning. At Kaunas Technical University (KTU), for example, teaching staff should engage in at least 30 hours of professional learning every five years (LSMU, 2021[18]); at VILNIUS TECH this is 40 hours (VILNIUS TECH, 2023[13]). Other institutions offer financial support or recognition for teaching excellence and professional learning. For example, each year Kaunas Technical University (KTU) organises a “best teacher award”, and at ISM University the “Innovative Teaching Fund” offers financial support to staff wishing to engage in professional development or organise innovative teaching projects for their students. These practices follow trends observed in other EU and OECD higher education systems. An institutional survey by EUA has found that around 77% of institutions offer optional pedagogical training while 37% of institutions made certain courses compulsory for academic staff (Gaebel et al., 2018[19]).

A second key challenge is that the primary focus of professional competency development in Lithuanian higher education is limited to research. One of the main reasons stakeholders credit for this is the upcoming external evaluation of institutions’ research and development (R&D) activities by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMT), scheduled in 2028. This will determine institutions’ authorisation to continue offering bachelor’s and master’s programmes in related study fields. Another reason is because, through the LMT, HEIs have access to a wide range of competitive funding programmes and capacity-building activities to support excellence in research and doctoral education (see Section 3.1). By contrast, SKVC has no such explicit mandate or resources to support teaching excellence in higher education. In addition to this, the ŠMSM has developed non-binding guidelines for pedagogical competence development (Republic of Lithuania, 2020[20]), while the LMT’s research competency framework for the recruitment and appraisal of researchers is mandatory for HEIs to follow (Republic of Lithuania, 2023[21]). Finding a better balance between investments made in the quality of education and research was cited by almost all interviewees as a key priority for the future.

Many VET providers do not have sufficient capacity to support the competence development of teaching staff and required external support is lacking

In the VET sector, too, stakeholders recognised the importance of creating more and better opportunities for VET teachers to develop their pedagogical competencies. In many VET institutions, such training is offered through informal mentoring among colleagues. Only larger institutions are able to provide sufficient resources for internal methodological groups to prepare training programmes, monitor and analyse the extracurricular work of teachers, or make suggestions for teaching and learning improvements to teachers and the school council. For example, at the Biržai Technology and Business Training Centre, a methodological group has a chair with 40 hours allotted to management and a task to prepare at least five reports or presentations for colleagues annually. In the Vilnius Service Business Vocational Training Centre (VPVPMC), an overarching methodological council supervises the activities of several subject-specific methodological groups, and all methodological activities are supervised by the deputy director for education (KPMPC, 2021[22]). However, in smaller institutions, subject-specific methodological groups along the lines of the approach taken at VPVPMC are not feasible, and institutions often only have one overarching group that comprises teachers from across different subject disciplines. This constrains their ability to offer targeted and expert peer-to-peer learning.

Given their smaller size compared with HEIs, many VET institutions rely heavily on available training, peer-learning and networking opportunities organised by external organisations, such as those organised by KPMPC’s 15 methodological commissions. These commissions have the objective to improve the quality of professional activities in their field and ensure that methodological and subject-specific teachers and educational support specialists co-operate (KPMPC, 2021[23]). The methodological commissions seek to promote pedagogical innovation, share good practice, and organise professional teacher training events.

Despite having a wealth of teaching expertise to draw upon, the commissions suffer from limited resources and competing priorities. On average, a commission had around one-third (34%) of its membership comprised of methodologists, the highest grade of teacher. A further 20% were experts, the next highest grade. This means significant expertise is available to support enhancement activities, with sufficient time allocation. However, the commissions typically only meet twice a year, and commission chair meetings are also convened twice a year by KPMPC. The expected meeting frequency and core work demands of members contribute to preventing the commissions from fulfilling a full work agenda which could make significant inroads into pedagogical advancements. Stakeholders reported that many commissions are also primarily focused on another of their objectives, preparing competence assessment tasks for the exam banks. At best they might be expected to fulfill a co-ordinating role in teaching enhancement.

Many VET providers also make extensive use of the EU’s Erasmus+ programme to support the professional development of teaching staff. However, as discussed elsewhere in this chapter, the reach of the KPMPC methodological commissions and international training opportunities does not cover all VET providers systematically.

Student surveys are routinely used to gather feedback, but a more strategic and diversified approach to data collection, analysis and use appears to be lacking

A third key trend is that VET providers and HEIs increasingly use surveys to collect feedback from students, teaching staff, graduates and employers on the quality of their provision. Other data collection tools and methods, however, seem to be less commonly used. One example is the use of learning analytics generated from the institution’s Virtual Learning Environment/Learning Management Systems (VLE/LMS). The Society for Research in Learning Analytics (SoLAR) defines learning analytics as "the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs" (SoLAR, n.d.[24]). Triangulated with survey and administrative data, learning analytics can generate rich insights on student learning.

Some HEIs are innovating data collection methods to improve student insights, while in VET institutions there is less data collection and more depends on student groups

Several stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team mentioned that there is a need for HEIs to increase the regularity and diversity of feedback collection methods, and to respond more rapidly to feedback from students and employers to “close the feedback loop”. A related challenge is that many HEIs fail to get good response rates from students and employers, partially because there is not always an immediate response or follow-up from institutions in response to feedback received. To respond to some of these challenges, some institutions have started to develop tools to monitor (student) feedback on a more ongoing basis, as well as reflect on different ways to involve students and employers in programme design. An innovative example identified at the University of Health Sciences (LMSU) is presented in Box 5.3. By contrast, innovations in the VET sector are driven more around the utilisation of staff-student groups or student councils to canvass student opinions and inform school policies.

Box 5.3. Quality “Thermometer”, Lithuanian University of Health Science (LSMU)

At the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LSMU), a "Quality Thermometer," has been developed to align with students' preferences for engaging with easily accessible surveys. This instrument, designed for assessing modules or subjects, provides prompt access to overall evaluations upon completion of the questionnaire by the student. Instructors receive immediate insights into the strengths and weaknesses of module implementation, facilitating targeted analysis where necessary. Furthermore, the questionnaire offers the convenience of mobile device compatibility, allowing users to complete it seamlessly. Additionally, respondents are encouraged to offer suggestions in an open-ended format. Accessible through LSMU’s virtual learning environment (VLE) / learning management system (LMS), the format allows for systematic feedback collection.

Source: LSMU (2024[25]), Study Quality Monitoring Feedback, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LSMU), Vilnius, https://lsmu.lt/en/for-students/quality-assurance/monitoring-and-feedback/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).

Data collection and analysis lack a systematic approach in VET and higher education

Developing more integrated quality management systems was highlighted as a key priority by many HEIs interviewed by the OECD team, with some already making investments to this effect. Representatives from Kaunas University of Technology (KTU), VILNIUS TECH and ISM reported that they have started using data visualisation and analysis software. Such practices can increase the efficiency of analysis and facilitate sharing of quality-related information with the entire academic community and external stakeholders.

Some good practices were also observed in VET providers using class management software to monitor ongoing student performance, but these would also benefit from systematic and widespread adoption. For example, at Karalius Mindaugo training centre, analysis of student attendance records is conducted to monitor engagement and test interventions with students prior to them dropping out of education. Similarly, teachers from several other VET providers highlighted the advantage of being able to use classroom management software to review student scores on ongoing assessment to monitor performance and target interventions. However, enabling a more standardised approach across and within schools would offer greater opportunities for data-driven insights to student management.

5.1.2. The landscape of organisations and initiatives supporting pedagogical enhancement and innovation

This section starts by offering an overview of the main organisations in Lithuania that support pedagogical enhancement and innovation in Lithuanian VET and higher education. The section then goes on to discuss four major gaps in the provision of system-level support for teaching and learning enhancement in Lithuania:

1. Limited requirements for the initial education and training of teaching staff.

2. Limited opportunities for teaching staff to engage in continuing professional learning.

3. Limited financial supports and incentives to improve teaching and learning quality.

4. A lack of educational research on “what works” in higher education.

Lithuania has no dedicated organisation or initiative to support pedagogical enhancement or innovation in VET and higher education

In most OECD and EU jurisdictions, the landscape of organisations and initiatives that supports teaching excellence is extremely diverse and heterogeneous. Depending on a country’s cultural history and policy traditions, pedagogical innovation and enhancement may be provided by (a combination of): national or regional associations of school directors (in VET), the rectors’ conference (in higher education), stakeholder associations (e.g. students’ or teachers’ unions, academies of science), non-profit and private actors providing specialised support services, or institutions themselves (engaging in sectoral co-operatives and partnerships to take ownership for quality enhancement). In some systems, especially those where institutions have achieved a high level of maturity and there is trust in the quality of provision, QA agencies or inspectorates will also play a role in fostering sectoral collaboration and enhancement (OECD, 2023[26]; OECD, 2025[27]). In Lithuania, however, the support offered by national bodies to VET and higher education institutions to promote pedagogical enhancement and innovation is limited.

A recent mapping of “National Developments in Learning and Teaching in Europe”, published by EUA, shows that there is no national organisation or initiative to systemically support pedagogical innovation in Lithuanian higher education (Zhang, 2022[17]). As noted in Section 3.1 of this report, SKVC has started to implement some activities beyond carrying out external evaluation and accreditation to support teaching and learning enhancement, but the agency has no explicit legal mandate and limited resources to do so. The Lithuanian Students’ Union (LSS) occasionally organises capacity-building events for HEI student unions, while the Conference of University Rectors and Conference of College Directors play no role at all in supporting sectoral collaboration on teaching and learning. Instead, as noted earlier in this section, teaching and learning enhancement in higher education is primarily led by HEIs themselves.

By contrast, in the VET sector teaching excellence and pedagogical innovation is promoted through fifteen dedicated methodological commissions, co-ordinated by KPMPC. The KPMPC Secretariat also offers training events and online resources to the VET sector, in addition to setting national quality standards and conducting external evaluation. Finally, 36 KPMPC-accredited competence assessment centres support VET schools to assess students’ practical and theoretical training (KPMPC, 2021[28]). However, as noted in Section 4.1 of this report, the support these organisations currently offer to VET providers does not meet the demands and needs for external support and training. Several VET stakeholders and experts interviewed by the OECD team noted a need for a stronger cross-sectoral approach (or body) to support the pedagogical competence development of VET teachers, supplementing the current (and insufficient) support offered by the KPMPC methodological commissions and competence assessment centres.

There is scope for enhancing the initial education, training and professional requirements of teaching staff in VET and higher education

A first major gap identified in the OECD team’s analysis relates to the initial education, training and professional requirements for teaching staff in VET and higher education. In higher education, despite the emergence of a dedicated career path for teaching, there is no requirement for teaching staff to obtain any form of teaching qualification. In VET, a basic teacher training course is required, but this is limited in scope compared with what is expected from general primary and secondary education teachers.

A separate career pathway for teaching is emerging in higher education, but this is not yet a popular career path, partially due to a lack of initial training and preparation

Article 7 of Lithuania’s Higher Education and Research Act states that a HEI can “establish its own structure, internal working arrangements, the number of staff, their rights, duties and conditions of payment for work, position requirements, the procedure of organisation of competitions to fill positions and of performance evaluation of employees, adhering to laws and other legal acts” (Republic of Lithuania, 2009[1]). However, to ensure teaching quality and protect the workload of academic staff, Lithuania specifies minimum qualification and professional requirements of teaching staff. Such requirements exist for three types of academic staff: teaching, research and administrative staff (see Table 5.2). In addition to this, legislation defines minimum staffing numbers for the management and delivery of study programmes in different study cycles (see Table 5.3).

At the end of 2023, three new staff categories for teaching staff were introduced: Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturer-Practitioners. In line with developments observed in other OECD and EU systems (OECD, 2024[16]), these were introduced to encourage HEIs to create dedicated career pathways for teaching and strengthen the involvement of practitioners from the labour market in teaching. All HEIs in Lithuania are currently redesigning their internal academic staff policies to reflect these new requirements. However, so far teaching is not yet a popular career path for academic staff in Lithuanian higher education. In consultations with the OECD team, higher education stakeholders mentioned two main reasons for this.

The first reason relates to the high workload associated with choosing a career as a teacher. Table 5.2 shows that all academic staff engaged in teaching in Lithuania are required to combine teaching with some form of research (except Lecturer-Practitioners) and, for senior teaching staff, engagement. A recent study explains that Lithuania is evolving from a teaching-intensive higher education model towards a more balanced division between teaching and research. However, compared with other European countries, many Lithuanian academics still spend more time on teaching than research, although this varies from institution to institution (Leišytė et al., 2022[29]). To protect the workload of teaching staff and encourage them to do research, the ŠMSM issued recommendations on the working time of higher education teaching staff in 2020 (Republic of Lithuania, 2020[30]). The recommendation identifies five main responsibilities of teaching staff in higher education: 1) teaching; 2) preparing teaching materials and related activities; 3) research; 4) publication, promotion and presentation of research; and 5) engagement in continuing professional development and administration. The recommendation specifies that at least 33% of instructors’ time should be spent on research, and no more than 50% on teaching.

For research staff, on the other hand, there are no legal requirements to engage in any form of teaching or societal engagement (see Table 5.2). In consultations with the OECD team, several stakeholders felt that a research career was therefore a more attractive career path than the teaching track. However, the OECD has found that staff in “research-only” positions in fact tend to value opportunities to teach (OECD, 2024[16]). A consideration for Lithuania is therefore to re-think the current division of responsibilities for teaching and research staff. Expanding the role of research staff in teaching could also be an option to help reduce the current workload on teaching staff.

The second reason for the limited attractiveness of teaching as a career in Lithuanian higher education relates to the lack of initial preparation and training. While all academic staff engaged in teaching in Lithuania are required to hold a doctoral degree (except junior assistants and researchers, lecturers and lecturer-practitioners), there are no requirements for academic staff to undergo any form of pedagogical training (as exists for teachers in primary education, secondary education and VET). Lithuania is not an exceptional case, as the main requirement for academic staff in most OECD and EU higher education systems is the attainment of a doctoral degree (Golden, Troy and Weko, 2021[31]). An OECD policy survey has found that in only seven out of 29 responding jurisdictions are academic staff engaged in teaching required to obtain a teaching qualification (ENQA, 2015[4]). Introducing a universal requirement for all academic staff engaged in teaching to hold such a qualification was cited by almost all stakeholders in Lithuania as a measure that might help to increase the attractiveness and quality of teaching in higher education.

Table 5.2. Lithuania’s academic career framework defines three broad types of academic staff

Legal requirements on the minimum qualification and professional competencies of academic staff in Lithuania

Staff category	Staff sub-categories	Responsibilities
		Research	Teaching	Engagement
Administrative staff	N.a.	✓ (recommended)	✓ (recommended)
Teaching staff	Professor	✓	✓	✓
	Associate professor	✓	✓	✓
	Assistant	✓	✓
	Junior assistant	✓	✓
	Senior lecturer	✓	✓
	Lecturer	✓	✓
	Lecturer-practitioner		✓
Research staff	Leading research staff	✓
	Recognised research staff	✓
	Approved research staff	✓
	Early career research staff	✓

Source: Adapted from Republic of Lithuania (2009[1])., Higher Education and Research Act, ŠMSM of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/548a2a30ead61159b76f36d7fa634f8 (accessed on 23 January 2024).

To ensure the effective management and delivery of study programmes, the Lithuanian government also defines minimum staffing numbers. For short-cycle programmes, the descriptor of general requirements for the implementation of study programmes stipulates that at least 10% of academic staff should hold a doctoral qualification or be a recognised artist, and more than 50% of staff should have at least 3 years of relevant professional experience (see Table 5.3). For bachelor’s and master’s programmes, at least 50% and 80% of academic staff respectively should hold a doctoral qualification. For master’s programmes, there is an additional requirement that at least 20% of courses should be delivered by academic staff employed as professors. There is no requirement for a minimum number of courses to be delivered by (or in co-operation with) staff with relevant professional experience. To ensure doctoral candidates receive sufficient support, a PhD supervisor cannot supervise more than 4 PhD candidates at any given time (for arts doctorates). For science doctorates, the maximum number of students a professor can supervise at the same time is five. In consultations with the OECD team, higher education stakeholders reported that several HEIs face challenges in meeting the legal requirements on minimum staffing numbers.

As discussed more extensively in Section 6.1 of this report, several Lithuanian HEIs – especially colleges in Klaipeda, Panevežys, and Marijampole – face challenges in attracting and retaining enough qualified staff. This was reported to be a major challenge by interviewees, especially within the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). As a result, many HEIs – and colleges in particular – employ high numbers of part-time staff, with academics often working across multiple institutions. In 2021/22, full-time lecturers accounted on average for 42% of full-time equivalent (FTE) academic staff positions in Lithuanian public colleges. In four of the 12 colleges, full-time staff accounted for one-third or less of FTE lecturer positions, meaning that a significant majority of teaching hours are delivered by staff with part-time (and, in practice, often temporary) positions (OECD, 2023[32]). International evidence finds that a high reliance on part-time staff may potentially have adverse effects on students’ learning experience (OECD, 2020[33]). For example, some studies have found that staff on precarious contracts are generally perceived as being less qualified by students and to negatively affect student retention.

Table 5.3. Lithuania defines minimum staffing numbers for programme management and delivery

Legal requirements for the management and delivery of study programmes in higher education

Programme type	Lecturers working as professors	Staff holding a doctoral qualification and/or recognised artists	Staff holding a master’s degree	Staff holding a (professional) bachelor’s degree	Staff with practical experience in the study field
Short-cycle & college level programmes	Not required	10%	Not required	Yes, for practical courses	>50% (min. 3 years professional experience)
Bachelor’s	Not required	50%	Not required	Not specified	Not required
Master’s	20%	80%	Not required	Not specified	20% may be practitioners with 3 years professional experience
Master of Law, Business or Public Administration (LLM/MBA/(MPA)	Not specified	Not specified	Not required	Not required	>50%
Doctoral programme (Arts)	PhD Supervisor, who cannot supervise more than 4 PhD candidates at any one given time. Doctoral Committee, consisting of 9 internationally recognised artists, high-level research scientists and/or doctors of arts, working in the institution(s) that have obtained the right to a doctorate. Doctoral Defense Council, consisting of 5 members, appointed by the Doctoral Committee.
Doctoral programme (Science)	PhD Supervisor, who cannot supervise more than 5 PhD candidates at any one given time. Doctoral Committee, consisting of 9 internationally recognised artists, high-level research scientists and/or doctors of arts, working in the institution(s) that have obtained the right to a doctorate. Doctoral Defense Council, consisting of 5 members, appointed by the Doctoral Committee.

Source: Adapted from Republic of Lithuania (2016[34]), Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies, Last amended on 7 July 2023 No V-953, Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/default/en/lawacts (accessed on 30 October 2023); Republic of Lithuania (2020[35]), Dėl Meno doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Arts regulations], ŠMSM of Education, Science and Sports, Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/c7a7c152f2f811e6be918a531b2126ab?jfwid=f4nne5l3d (accessed on 17 January 2025); Republic of Lithuania (2017[36]), Dėl Mokslo doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Science regulations], ŠMSM of Education, Science and Sports, Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/71ae1e80993e11eaa51db668f0092944/asr (accessed on 23 January 2024).

Many HEIs also face challenges in adequately involving employers in the programme delivery process in meaningful ways. While a minimum percentage of employers should be involved in the delivery of short-cycle, bachelor’s and master’s programmes, in practice, employer involvement often remains limited to providing one or two guest lectures or offering work placements. The work placement of students is not always sufficiently connected to the study programme, which further hinders the transferability of academic content to the workplace. HEIs would welcome greater financial support and guidance to strengthen their collaboration with employers for the design and delivery of their study programmes.

The requirements for VET teachers entering the profession are highly flexible, and a strictly regulated hierarchy of teacher grades hinders professional development

Article 7 of Lithuania’s Executive Order on teacher grades stipulates that, to become a VET teacher in Lithuania, only a secondary education qualification is required. VET teachers are not required to have completed a teacher training course before they start teaching, as is required for teachers in general primary and secondary education. However, for VET teachers entering the profession without a specific pedagogical qualification, the subsequent completion of a pedagogical-psychological knowledge course and a minimum of two years of teaching experience is required (Republic of Lithuania, 2008[37]). The course requirements for the pedagogical-psychological course are laid down in a separate ŠMSM order (Republic of Lithuania, 2017[38]). It consists of three modules on pedagogy, psychology and didactics. Each module consists of 40 contact hours and 20 hours of independent work. This training course is relatively short compared with the initial teacher education for primary and general secondary education teachers.

In consultations with the OECD team, stakeholders explained that the more flexible entry requirements for VET teachers compared with general primary and secondary teachers exist to help providers attract the necessary teaching staff. Many VET providers face challenges in attracting sufficient numbers of teachers due to the higher remuneration offered to professionals in other, non-educational sectors of the economy. A further challenge is an ageing teaching population. The majority of VET teachers in Lithuania are over 55 years old (55% in 2024/25) and have more than 15 years of experience (SVIS, 2024[39]). While this flexibility is understandable (to address teacher shortage or “quantity” challenges), it also presents a risk for the quality of teaching in VET as there may be greater variation in the pedagogical readiness of teaching staff. National data show that there are 616 individuals without a pedagogical qualification, constituting approximately one-half of all VET teachers in Lithuania in 2024-25 (SVIS, 2024[40]).

Another challenge is that there is limited quality assurance of the providers delivering this training course. Despite stipulations on the content of the pedagogical-psychological training courses, they can be delivered by a wide range of training providers. This can include universities, colleges, education support institutions and private providers. The absence of any central or accredited (set of) training provider(s) makes it difficult to be confident in the quality of the training provided to teachers. It also makes it hard for individual institutions to gauge the quality of the training they receive for their staff.

Lithuanian legislation also sets out a regulated hierarchy of four teacher grades in VET: teacher, senior teacher, methodologist and expert. For each of these teacher categories, the minimum years of teaching experience, skills and salary band are specified (see Table 5.4). To be promoted, teachers need to carry out a self-assessment, followed by an external evaluation (by the school leader, a delegated representative of the managing body, and a KPMPC-appointed external expert), focused on three criteria:

1. Expediency, effectiveness and efficiency of educational activities: the knowledge of the general curriculum and education standards, planning educational programmes taking account the context of the students and topics.

2. Communication, co-operation and activity in the community of the institution: establishing effective relationships with students, colleagues, parents, and members of the local community and understanding the importance of collaboration to achieve goals.

3. Personal professional development: demonstrating commitment to lifelong learning and professional development and reflecting on themselves to develop, including via the preparation of self-assessment dossier to evaluate and reflect on performance.

Each grading area includes a detailed set of criteria that are evaluated and scored by the external evaluation panel, and which confers the ability for an individual to be awarded a specific teacher grading. For example, for grading area 3 (personal professional development), the criteria include: whether the individual is an author or co-author of an approved textbook; whether the teacher works as a consultant, certified mentor or has at least two years of experience as a project coordinator; and whether they can prepare and read reports in foreign languages. Each criterion is scored on a 0 (not fulfilled) to 3 (very well fulfilled) scale and the criteria for each of the categories are tallied at the end.

Despite offering a route for promotion, several of these criteria are relatively strict and tend to emphasis the need for a teacher to “reach outside” the classroom into domains that further the general pedagogical development in the field. For example, the criteria on publishing approved textbooks and working as a consultant are not related to the teaching that teachers provide to their students. Therefore, the current system provides limited (financial) incentives for those teachers who wish to focus more narrowly on their own pedagogical development and teaching to their students and for schools to retain good teaching staff with those ambitions. Similarly, the requirements for promotion often place demands on teachers to complete extra work outside of their scheduled teaching hours, increasing the burden on schools and teachers to carve out space to ensure individuals have sufficient time to complete such tasks.

Table 5.4. Teacher seniority levels are determined by experience and competencies

Legal requirements on the seniority levels of VET teachers in Lithuania

Teaching grade	Minimum years of teaching experience	Skills descriptor	Grading areas
			Area 1: Educational activities	Area 2: Communication	Area 3: Professional development	Other	Total points
Teacher	0 or 2	Higher education and a pedagogical qualification or Pedagogical-psychological knowledge + 2 years teaching experience	8-12	4-6	4-6	0	20
Senior Teacher	4 years	Able to organise & analyse the education, training & learning Constantly updates knowledge Actively participates in methodological activities & spreads expertise across the institution	13-16	7-10	6-9	6	35
Methodologist	5 years	Excellent organisation & analysis of education, training and learning Use of modern pedagogical practices Constantly updates knowledge Prepares educational projects, actively participates in methodical activities & spreads expertise across the institution & regionally	20-22	11-13	10-11	9	50
Expert	6 years	Professional organisation & analysis of education, training & learning. Researches pedagogical situations & new learning strategies Creates own effective learning strategies & develops educational projects & pedagogical tools Spreads expertise across the institution, region & country	22-24	13-15	11-12	19	65

Source: Adapted from Republic of Lithuania (2008[37]), DĖL MOKYTOJŲ IR PAGALBOS MOKINIUI SPECIALISTŲ (IŠSKYRUS PSICHOLOGUS) ATESTACIJOS NUOSTATŲ PATVIRTINIM [Certification Provisions For Teachers And Student Support Specialists (Except Psychologists)], ŠMSM of Education, Science and Sports , Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.332784 (accessed on 15 January 2025).

Teaching staff in VET and higher education do not have access to systemic support for continuing professional learning

A second major gap identified in Lithuania’s eco-system for teaching and learning enhancement is that, despite the existence of system-level guidelines (in higher education) and legal requirements (in VET) for teaching staff to engage in continuing professional learning, there are limited structural opportunities for them to do so.

National guidance on pedagogical competence development is insufficient to promote continuing professional learning in higher education

To encourage the professional development of teaching staff in higher education, the ŠMSM published a set of national “Guidelines for the Improvement of the Academic Performance of Teachers in Higher Education Institutions” in June 2020 (Republic of Lithuania, 2020[41]). The guidelines were developed in response to calls from the academic community for a “descriptor of teachers’ educational competences [... to] contribute to the development of efficient higher education strategies” (Navickienė and Salienė, 2017, p. 14[42]). They seek to support the development of more consistent, systematic and continuous approaches to academic staff’s pedagogical competency development, covering three areas: pedagogical competencies, research competencies and transversal competencies, underpinned by a comprehensive and inclusive competence development plan, opportunities for career progression and the allocation of dedicated financial and human resources (see Table 5.5). The guidelines include recommendations for both academic staff and institutional leadership to engage in and create opportunities for professional development. In doing so, Lithuania is one of nine European countries that has a national guideline in place for teaching enhancement (Zhang, 2022[17]).

To date, however, the adoption of these guidelines by institutions has been uneven. As mentioned earlier in this report, to date, only a few Lithuanian HEIs have established an institutional centre for teaching and learning (see Table 5.1). A report by the National Audit Office of Lithuania also finds that while many HEIs have started to invest in the development of their staff’s pedagogical competencies, the current level of investment by institutions is insufficient, and large differences can be observed between larger and smaller institutions (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2021[43]). It also notes that many higher education instructors in Lithuania still use very traditional and “boring” ways of teaching, which is confirmed by several students interviewed by the OECD team as part of the project. Earlier studies have found that the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) has had a positive impact on the development of student-centred teaching and learning practices in Lithuanian higher education (Knyvienė et al., 2017[44]), and that institutions are increasingly rethinking their academic career and workload models to incentivise academic staff to engage in continuing professional development (Strata, 2019[45]).

Instead, HEIs seem to be more focused on strengthening their academic staff’s research competencies, based on the “Mandatory Competencies for the Career Stages of Researchers at Higher Education and Research Institutions” developed by the LMT (Republic of Lithuania, 2023[21]). The LMT’s framework on research competencies includes a detailed list of both “mandatory” and “desirable” competencies for researchers at all stages of their career. The competencies were developed to incentivise HEIs to prioritise the development of research competencies, invest in their human resource and professional development strategies for researchers, and promote common research career structures in Lithuania. HEIs also need to follow these competency requirements for the recruitment, promotion and professional development of teaching staff. Almost all stakeholders interviewed by the OECD team mentioned that the development of a similar set of “mandatory” or “minimum” competency requirements for all academic staff engaged in teaching may be needed to raise the status and quality of instruction in Lithuanian higher education.

Table 5.5. Guidelines on the focus and implementation of staff professional development activities in Lithuanian higher education

Area	Guidelines
Recommended focus of staff professional development activities
1. Pedagogical competencies	1. Design of educational content and materials 2. Teaching and learning activities 3. Student assessment and feedback 4. Evaluation and improvement of pedagogical practices
2. Research competencies	1. Research skills 2. Planning and implementation of research, data analysis, interpretation synthesis 3. Preparation and review of scientific publications 4. Dissemination of research/art activities and results
3. Transversal competencies	1. Digital competencies 2. Leadership competencies 3. Intercultural competencies
Recommendations for the implementation of staff professional development
1. Institution	1. Make staff professional development a strategic priority of the higher education institution. 2. Provide sufficient resources and infrastructure for systematic and continuous staff professinoal development. 3. Promote, support and evaluate the development of educational research in various fields of study. 4. Analyse teachers‘ professional development needs drawing on staff‘s individual teaching and research workload, student feedback, teachers‘ personal annual activity plans, and other relevant information. 5. Set clear competence objectives for staff professional development. 6. Create an institutional strategy for staff professional development. 7. Monitor and evaluate the improvement of teachers‘ competencies. 8. Offer guidance and support on how instructors can improve their competencies. 9. Monitor the impact of competence development on institutional goals. 10. Develop teacher competence development networks in higher education and beyond.
2. Instructors	1. Assess individual professional development needs. 2. Create a personal competence development plan. 3. Participate in competence development activities. 4. Evaluate the impact of professional development activities on competence development. 5. Submit proposals to (management) of the higher education institution on competence development needs and activities.

Note: For the recommended competency areas, each of the topics includes more specific descriptors which are not included in this table.

Source: Adapted from Republic of Lithuania (2020[20]), Dėl Aukštųjų mokyklų dėstytojų kompetencijų tobulinimo gairių patvirtinimo [Guidelines for Improvement of the Academic Performance of Teachers at Higher Education Institutions], www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/9b11a070b22111eab9d9cd0c85e0b745 (accessed on 20 February 2024).

Continuing professional learning opportunities for school-based VET teachers are limited and often self-financed, and there is no system to support in-company trainers

In the VET sector, legislation requires all teachers to engage in at least five days of continuing professional learning (CPL) per year to maintain employment and have the opportunity to get promoted. By doing so, Lithuania is one of only two OECD systems where CPL is mandatory for general and vocational teachers (OECD, 2019[46]). Despite this regulatory requirement, teachers’ capacity to engage in CPL is heavily limited in practice by time and budget constraints. In discussions with the OECD team, several VET teachers and experts reported that they have to self-finance parts of their training and undertake it in their own time. This is confirmed by a recent KPMPC survey, in which almost one-third (30.4%) of VET teachers report having to self-finance their training (KPMPC, 2021[47]). This imposes limits on the extent to which some teachers meaningfully engage with training beyond the statutory minimum and is not well-aligned to a system in which there is a minimum annual training requirement. Bolstering budgets for staff training and ensuring equal access opportunities for all staff members would help teachers to build their expertise further.

There are three major networks in Lithuania that support the enhancement of teaching and learning in the Lithuanian VET sector. They are: 1) fifteen methodological commissions, managed by KPMPC and comprising VET teachers and external experts; 2) 42 sectoral practical training centres, which bring together high quality and modern equipment to facilitate teaching (ŠMSM, n.d.[48]); and 3) 36 competence assessment centres (KPMPC, 2021[28]), which coalesce institutional expertise to offer standardised student assessments. In consultations with the OECD team, several stakeholders pointed to the limited capacity and role played by these three networks in systematically supporting the CPL of VET teachers.

While, by law, the methodological commissions are meant to organise a wide range of activities to support teaching and learning enhancement in the VET sector (e.g. training, workshops, the development of best practice materials and resources), in practice their activities focus mostly on updating the content of VET exams. KPMPC’s annual activity report in 2022 itself notes the need to strengthen and institutionalise the networking and support functions of these committees (KPMPC, 2022[49]). The ability of the commissions to spread best practices in teaching and learning across schools is also limited by their practical. The median number of different schools represented in each commission is seven. This means that not all VET institutions have a member of staff active in each commission, who could bring back insights.

At present, the sectoral practical training centres primarily support VET providers with older equipment to provide their students with placements to learn how to use the latest technological equipment in their field. The competence assessment centres, for their part, primarily focus on ensuring standardisation in student assessment. In consultations with the OECD team, however, several stakeholders pointed to the potential that these two networks to organise training, networking and peer learning for VET teachers.

Finally, there is a lack of structural support for the professional development of in-company trainers in Lithuania. Stakeholders reported to the OECD team, that networks of employer engagement were often parochial and depended on VET teachers themselves to build links to employers who could offer placements. This extends to management of the quality of the training offer by in-company trainers. There are no systematic quality checks on the ability and competences of in-company trainers by KPMPC or any other institutional body. There is also no systematic support or training for those in-company trainers who wish to develop their competencies. This means that the development of quality placements for students rests entirely on the good will and competence of in-company trainers.

There is a lack of financial supports and incentives for pedagogical innovation in VET and higher education

A third gap identified in the analysis is the lack of dedicated financial supports or incentives for teaching and learning enhancement in Lithuania. In many OECD and EU jurisdictions, education providers can access to government-funded programmes to develop or experiment with innovative teaching and assessment methods or tools. For example, a recent OECD policy survey among OECD higher education systems found that 15 (out of 29) responding jurisdictions had established innovation funds to finance experimentation with digital tools. Such financial support was not available to HEIs in Lithuania (Broberg and Golden, 2023[50]). Education projects in Lithuania are primarily supported through international funding sources, which are managed by the Education Exchange Support Foundation (EESF). The EESF was established in 2007 and is a national agency entrusted with the administration of the Erasmus+ programme and several other initiatives funded by the European Commission and the Lithuanian government to support quality enhancement across all sectors of education and training – including VET and higher education. For example, through the Nordplus programme, Lithuania supports international co-operation and exchange between the Baltic and Nordic states in the area of education (Nordplus, n.d.[51]). The EESF also runs the Annual Teaching Quality Competition (see Box 5.4).

Box 5.4. Annual Teaching Quality Competition in Lithuania

In October 2023, Lithuania hosted the seventeenth edition of the “Annual Teaching Quality Competition”, encompassing all levels of education and training. This longstanding event showcased project advancements and celebrated individuals within the education sector who consistently pursue excellence, foster student skill development, and enrich the education system. Notably, amid the European Year of Skills, significant emphasis was placed on artificial intelligence technology, reflecting the evolving landscape of educational practices.

Source: Republic of Lithuania (2023[52]), Išdalinti „Kokybės konkurso 2023“ apdovanojimai [The "Quality Competition 2023" awards have been distributed], https://smpf.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/isdalinti-kokybes-konkurso-2023-apdovanojimai/ (accessed on 28 August 2024).

In VET providers, the extent to which additional funding is available for pedagogical development rests heavily on whether schools can allocate such funding from their operating budgets. Given the large proportion of VET teachers who currently report having to at least part-fund their own training, it seems unlikely that this funding is sufficient on a system-wide basis. As noted, a lot of teaching enhancement is delivered by participation in the EU’s Erasmus+ programme. Even where KPMPC has undertaken projects on teaching enhancement, many of these projects have been funded through EU funds. This leaves an open question as to where sufficient ongoing funding can be obtained in Lithuania for such enhancement.

Educational research on the quality of teaching and learning in higher education is limited

A final gap identified in the OECD team’s analysis relates to research on “what works” in higher education. Most educational research in Lithuania focuses on school education and VET, and the evidence base on what constitutes good quality teaching, learning and assessment for these levels of education is co-ordinated by the Lithuanian Educational Research Association (LERA) (see Box 5.5). Operating at arms-length of the ŠMSM, the National Agency for Education (NŠA) also has a clear mandate to carry out research and support teaching and learning enhancement in the school and VET sectors – for example, through the development of educational content, system level evaluations or the organisation of workshops and peer-learning events.

Box 5.5. Lithuanian Educational Research Association (LERA)

The Lithuanian Educational Research Association (LERA) unites educational researchers in Lithuania with the goal of enhancing educational practices in VET and general education both nationally and internationally. LERA focuses on fostering collaboration among educational institutions, policymakers, and international organisations to advance research methodologies and promote best practice in education and training. Through the analysis and dissemination of educational research experiences, LERA aims to cultivate a culture of independent research while facilitating discussions on research quality, objectives, and methodologies. One of LERA’s objectives is to promote partnerships between Lithuanian universities, research institutions, and international counterparts around education research.

Source: LERA (2024[53]), Lithuanian Educational Research Association (LERA), https://lera.lt/en/home/.

5.2.  Proposed roadmap for Lithuania to develop a national framework to promote pedagogical enhancement and innovation in higher education and VET

This section offers recommendations and a roadmap with suggested action points for Lithuania to address some of the most important challenges identified in section 5.1 above. The recommendations and associated roadmap were developed based on a review of international policies for quality assurance and enhancement across nine comparator jurisdictions for Lithuania (2025[54]) and OECD (2025[27]).

5.2.1.  Develop VET teacher and company trainer competences with better training courses and guidance, and greater strategic resources to promote knowledge sharing

In VET, there are three main recommendations to foster development of teacher and trainer competences. First, Lithuania could consider making changes to its initial teacher training programme to help ensure that newly employed VET teachers have the skills necessary to succeed. Lithuania may consider strengthening ongoing support for professional development to enable them to update their pedagogical competencies throughout their careers. Finally, Lithuania may consider developing adequate support for in-company trainers, as they undertake placements, particularly in a context where there is an explicit government target on the number of apprenticeships delivered.

Recommendation 13: Reform the initial teacher training programme to make it better focused on VET and ensure it is properly quality assured 

Internationally, it is common for teaching staff in the VET sector to be required to undergo initial teacher education. For school-based VET teachers, most European countries have established comprehensive qualification requirements, including a tertiary degree, often combined with a pedagogical qualification. These requirements vary depending on whether the teacher instructs general or vocational subjects, theory or practice, with vocational subject teachers sometimes requiring work experience in industry (OECD, 2025[27]). In some cases, vocational teachers also need to pass state examinations, selection tests or competitions. These training courses are important, particularly where teachers enter from industry, rather than coming with previous pedagogical expertise or experience.

Lithuania’s current initial training course is centrally administered, does not focus on VET specifically and there are no audits of providers to understand quality and its variability, and to provide feedback to providers so that they may improve their training courses. Alongside considering the implementation of a bespoke training course for VET teachers, Lithuania could also consider expanding its reach, by expanding its credits and offering optional modules. Denmark offers a relevant example for Lithuania of where this is done (see Box 5.6), and where the format of its course has been updated so that teachers are able to participate part-time. Optional modules could be given as part of an extended programme for teachers identified as having promise to progress into positions of leadership or could form part of the core programme available to all. VET institutions should be consulted to determine their support not only for the proposed content, but also its method of delivery and source of funding.

Box 5.6. In-service training for VET and adult education teachers in Denmark

The Diploma of Education in Vocational Pedagogy (Diplomuddannelsen i Erhvervspædagogik) is a part‑time in‑service programme introduced for all VET and adult education teachers hired after January 2010, replacing the previous teacher training course. Its goal is to elevate teaching skills to the level of compulsory education teachers with a professional bachelor’s degree. VET teachers must enter with a VET qualification and relevant work experience. This training course aims to impart pedagogical skills on top of this. Equivalent to one year of full-time study (60 ECTS) and placed at European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Level 6, it is typically done part-time to integrate practical teaching experience. Teachers must enrol within one year of employment and complete the programme within six years. Developed by the Danish National Centre for the Development of Vocational Education and Training (NCE) in collaboration with teacher associations, college management, and the ŠMSM of Education, the programme includes three compulsory and five optional modules, along with a final exam project. The training is offered by NCE and other university colleges.

Source: Cedefop; University College Copenhagen (2022[55]) Vocational education and training in Europe - Denmark: system description, www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/vet-in-europe/systems/denmark-u2 (10 September 2024).

Roadmap to implement Recommendation 13

To implement Recommendation 13, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:

• Action point 1: Commission KPMPC to conduct a project aimed at reviewing the existing initial teacher training offer. Particular thought should be given to whether the generic training course currently undertaken is sufficiently targeted towards the specifics of VET.

• Action point 2: Review the content of the initial training course to determine whether more depth and length is desirable to develop skills for those new teachers with greater ambition.

• Action point 3: Introduce a system of audit for providers of teacher training courses for VET, to monitor quality and provide information on development. KPMPC to collate this information and provide it to VET institutions to enable better training decisions for new teachers.

Recommendation 14: Increase support for KPMPC methodological commissions to provide enhancement support to VET teachers 

CPL for VET teachers plays a crucial role in enhancing teaching quality, fostering pedagogical innovation, and aligning education with labour market demands. Internationally, VET teachers benefit from more structured and specialised CPL systems than those typically available to higher education staff. These systems are often supported by national or regional bodies or networks that promote collaboration, best practice sharing, and pedagogical advancement (OECD, 2025[27]).

Globally, three main models for organising CPL for vocational education and training (VET) teachers exist (OECD, 2025[27]):

• Centrally led models: In countries such as Finland and Croatia, national or regional government bodies play a key role in delivering teacher training. Finland's National Agency for Education (EDUFI) oversees educational priorities and commissions training, while Croatia integrates VET teacher development within its quality assurance framework (ASOO, 2024[56]) to ensure consistency with sectoral standards.

• Collaborative models: Countries like Germany (Huismann and Hippach-Schneider, 2021[57]) and and the Netherlands (HE-School Clusters, 2018[58]), adopt a collaborative approach, where VET institutions partner with higher education institutions (HEIs) through regional clusters or networks. This collaboration enhances accessibility and ensures professional development aligns with regional needs.

• Industry-led models: In places such as the United Kingdom and Missouri (United States), industry bodies and professional associations lead teacher training efforts. This model ensures that CPL remains tightly aligned with evolving industry standards by incorporating real-world insights through industry-based programs or externships.

Lithuania’s current approach aligns with the first model, where a central agency coordinates CPL efforts. However, there is potential to strengthen this model by leveraging existing infrastructure, using sectoral practical training centres, to provide VET teachers with enhanced pedagogical support. Since Lithuania already uses the sectoral practical training centres as a means to provide students from institutions with fewer facilities the opportunity to attend courses at these centres, these centres also provide an ideal environment to offer teachers the same kind of pedagogical support.

The Knowledge Centres in Denmark offer inspiration for Lithuania in how they may combine the advanced training facilities of their sectoral practical training centres with an additional network of teaching enhancement support. The centres aim to support vocational schools to integrate digital and new technologies into their education programs, and to test and develop new teaching courses. They also strive to encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing among vocational institutions and to better utilise the infrastructures and frameworks already in place in its schools (Videnscenterportalen, 2024[59]).

Key tasks of the knowledge centres involve providing access to specialised technology and talent courses for students, creating new teaching materials, and promoting the FabLab-inspired integration of technology into learning. They facilitate teacher networks to enhance digital didactic skills, offer talent development programs and training camps, and collaborate with companies, primary schools, and higher education institutions. Additionally, they focus on capacity building, maintaining specialised equipment, and fostering partnerships to strengthen vocational education and prepare students for evolving industry needs.

Roadmap to implement Recommendation 14

To implement Recommendation 14, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:

• Action point 1: KPMPC should undertake a review of its capacity to support methodological commissions and to provide options for strengthening the dedicated resource provided to this function. The ŠMSM should review KPMPC’s request and establish funding capacity to support implementation. This review should include not only the secretariat resources at KPMPC to manage the commissions, but also whether funding should exist for teaching staff who are commission members to dedicate more of their day jobs to commission work.

• Action point 2: Undertake a review of how the sectoral practical training centres may be enhanced so that they serve as a development function for teacher training alongside equipping students advanced practical training.

• Action point 3: Review how to add resource to the sectoral practical training centres to enhance their functionality as centres for teaching excellence, using the Danish example for inspiration.

Recommendation 15: Improve support and training for in-company trainers 

In-company trainers play a vital role in VET, helping students as they put their learning to use in real-world settings. However, typically the quality of the teaching component in these settings is less formalised than it is for school-based teaching, giving rise to the possibility of more variable quality. To support the quality enhancement of in-company training, there are two options Lithuania can consider: first, the development of professional standards for in-company trainers (to provide clear expectations at system level of what good quality work-based learning (WBL) looks like); second, establishing financial and non-financial incentives to supplement an accreditation procedure for WBL providers.

Among the nine comparator jurisdictions analysed for Lithuania, only Croatia and Ireland have defined professional standards for in-company trainers (OECD, 2025[27]). When using professional standards for trainers, several factors must be considered, such as making them flexible for different business context and being sector-specific (Cedefop, 2014[60]). It is important to balance regulation with voluntarism, by supporting training for those seeking professional development without over-regulating the sector. Lithuania does not currently employ professional standards for its in-company trainers.

As noted in Recommendation 7, in some systems, companies must be accredited in order to be allowed to take on apprentices. For some companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it may be challenging to meet all the entry requirements listed in these accreditation procedures, or the criteria included in professional requirements. Recognising this challenge, some countries adapt their criteria or exempt SMEs from having to apply for accreditation, or link financial and non-financial incentives to successful accreditation (OECD, 2023[61]). For example, in England (UK), successful registration in the apprenticeship provider assessment register (APAR) gives employers access to an online CPL platform as well as the government’s “recruit an apprentice service”, allowing them to create apprenticeship adverts. APAR organisations are also eligible for public funding to support the implementation of their apprenticeship, as well as extra funding if they take on apprentices who need additional support. For SMEs, 100% of the cost of training and assessment of apprentices is covered by the government (DfE, 2023[62]).

In the Netherlands, companies that wish to offer company-based training to lower and upper-secondary VET students have access to similar benefits when they are successfully accredited by a dedicated body. It allows them to access the online platform Stagemarkt.nl (the government’s student portal on education placements), as well as comprehensive training opportunities offered by SBB, as well as assistance in communication with providers, help with recruiting students, and knowledge exchange within the sector. Sweden offers an alternative example, where support is provided to in-company trainers but there is less of an involved infrastructure around employer engagement. It offers a short, free-of-charge online course, taking only 10 minutes to complete, to in-company trainers, to offer them basic support on the expectations for trainers and students in work placements (MYH, n.d.[63]).

Taking inspiration from these examples, such as providing support materials for in-company trainers, there are different ways in which Lithuania can support quality enhancement in work-based learning.

Roadmap to implement Recommendation 15

To implement Recommendation 15, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:

• Action point 1: KPMPC should collate and share guidance material for in-company trainers in an accessible manner and develop content on the apprenticeship website (Pameistryste.lt).

• Action point 2: KPMPC should develop or commission a short online training course on basic management and development functions of placements.

5.2.2.  Develop a universal teaching qualification for teaching staff in higher education, and establish national centres of excellence to support teaching enhancement

To promote a culture of pedagogical enhancement and innovation in higher education, there are two main recommendations Lithuania should consider: a) support HEIs to develop a universal teaching qualification; and b) support the establishment of national centres of excellence for teaching and learning in higher education, building on existing institutional best practice.

Recommendation 16: Support HEIs to develop a national framework for teaching in higher education, situating ownership for its development and implementation with the sector 

Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, a national or sub-national requirement for academic staff to hold a teaching qualification was identified in four jurisdictions, i.e. in Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway (OECD, 2025[27]). For example, in Denmark, lecturers must complete a professional postgraduate teacher training (universitetspædagogikum) and this training is a prerequisite for higher academic positions, including a professorship. In Norway, there is a regulatory expectation for academic staff with a teaching role to follow a 200-hour teacher training course, but professors need to document further qualifications than the minimum. Finally, initial teacher training is also often included in PhD positions or required for graduation (Sharmini and Spronken-Smith, 2019[64]).

If Lithuania wishes to introduce a similar universal requirement for academic staff responsibility for teaching to obtain a pedagogical qualification, then there are some key considerations it will need to keep in mind – drawing on the experience from these four international examples:

• Consideration 1: A first key consideration is to ensure that the development and implementation of any national teaching qualification is led by the higher education sector itself. Higher education providers – and within those, individual faculties and academic staff – typically enjoy a large amount of autonomy. Highly centralised and top-down approaches to improving teaching quality – such as guidelines mandated by the ŠMSM – are therefore doomed to fail (Staring et al., 2022[65]; OECD, 2023[26]; OECD, 2025[27]). An option Lithuania may consider in this context is giving the Conference of University Rectors or the Conference of College Directors a specific mandate and resources to collaborate for the development of a national qualification framework for teaching in higher education. In Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, it is precisely those bodies that have overseen the development of such a framework, in close collaboration with experts from the sector. However, in consultations with the OECD team several stakeholders noted the current lack of capacity or resources of the Conference of University Rectors or the Conference of College Directors to take on such a project. So, if Lithuania were to proceed in such a manner, it would need to mobilise additional resources to professionalise these two bodies and strengthen their role in developing the system.

• Consideration 2: A second key consideration is to ensure that any set of national teacher training guidelines or recommendations is kept sufficiently broad, to allow institutions to develop their own teacher training qualifications within broadly agreed principles. For example, in the Netherlands, the national guidelines on a Universal Teacher Qualification (UTQ) contain seven broad principles, covering as little as one page (Universities of the Netherlands, 2022[66]). Similarly, the Norwegian guidelines on basic pedagogical competencies in higher education, developed by the University and College Council (UHR), are broadly formulated and give HEIs a lot of flexibility to develop their own programmes within those (UHR, 2018[67]).

• Consideration 3: International experience also suggests that implementation takes time. In the Netherlands, only 23% of permanent academics had obtained a UTQ in 2011, three years after it was first introduced (de Groot and Kouwenaar, 2018[68]). It was only by 2016 that the UTQ had become the norm, with most academics holding it. Between 2016 and 2021 there was further progress, especially among academics in more senior positions: professors and associate professors are now the groups with the highest shares of academics with the UTQ (Universities of the Netherlands, 2022[66]). Evidence from Norway’s latest “Teachers’ Survey”, which included questions about teaching qualifications and professional learning, shows that approximately 16% of academics had no formal qualification for teaching – a lower share than the 27% reported in the previous survey conducted in 2017. The share of academics without formal teaching qualifications was much greater amongst academics in temporary positions (Amundsen, Karlsen and Lid, 2021[69]).

• Consideration 4: A final consideration is the role for SKVC to support the implementation of the UTQ. In the United Kingdom, AdvanceHE – a member-led charity – incentivises HEIs to adhere to the “Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education” by running an accreditation service. The external assessment endorses HEIs that meet the sector-agreed professional standards for teaching and learning enhancement, offering recognition for institutional efforts (Advance HE, 2019[70]). As the universal teaching qualification in Lithuania becomes more common, SKVC may consider playing a role in assuring the quality of the training offered by HEIs to their teaching staff and support its enhancement.

Roadmap to implement Recommendation 16

To implement Recommendation 16, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:

• Action point 1: Appoint a dedicated body to lead the development of a national qualifications framework for teaching in higher education, in close collaboration with the sector. Such a body could be the Conference of University Rectors and the Conference of College Directors, if they are given a specific mandate and additional resources for this.

• Action point 2: Consider a role for SKVC in supporting the implementation of a national teaching qualification framework, for instance by developing a specialised accreditation service to recognise and support the enhancement of institutional efforts.

Recommendation 17: Support the establishment of national centres of excellence for teaching and learning in higher education, building on existing institutional best practice 

Introducing a national requirement for teaching staff to obtain a pedagogical qualification is unlikely to lead to a deep transformation of teaching in Lithuanian higher education. International evidence suggests that in order to promote teaching excellence, it is crucial to give teaching staff opportunities, time and recognition for engaging in training, collaboration, peer learning and critical inquiry, both within and across institutions (OECD, 2023[26]; OECD, 2025[27]). To help HEIs build such communities of practice, some leading OECD and EU jurisdictions have established national or regional support structures, responsible for the development and dissemination of guidance and best practices in teaching and learning organising (online) conferences and training courses, teaching excellence awards, and other types of services that seek to support and recognise excellence in teaching.

Across the nine comparator systems analysed for Lithuania, organisations offering sectoral support for pedagogical enhancement and innovation were identified in Croatia, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands and Scotland (United Kingdom) (OECD, 2025[27]). An analysis of the form and function of these centres shows three different models (with in some countries, a mix of models co-existing):

• Model 1: The first model consists of creating a separate and dedicated national body to support teaching and learning enhancement across the higher education sector. This is the approach taken by Ireland which, in 2014, established the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (National Forum). In late 2021, the National Forum was integrated in the Higher Education Authority to give it a more stable financial basis and ensure closer alignment with strategic priorities for higher education teaching and learning (TL, n.d.[71]). One of the main benefits of establishing a national centre for teaching and learning enhancement is that it can offer a neutral platform where the opinions of various stakeholders (e.g. public and private HEIs, QA agencies, government departments and other bodies) can converge around teaching and learning. It can also send a powerful national message to the importance of teaching excellence.

• Model 2: A second model is to embed the quality enhancement function in an already existing national structure that already plays a role in supporting the quality enhancement of teaching and learning in some way. In Scotland (United Kingdom), the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) runs a “Tertiary Sector Enhancement” programme for colleges and universities in addition to conducting a regular external peer review (QAA Scotland, 2024[72]). In the Netherlands, it is the national IT network for education and research (NREN), SURF, that receives government funding to run sectoral enhancement projects with HEIs (SURF, 2024[73]). The potential benefits for countries considering adopting this approach is that a) it does not require the establishment of an entirely new body and b) it can support synergies between different already existing sectoral enhancement projects.

• Model 3: The third model involves giving HEIs explicit responsibility for learning pedagogical enhancement across the sector. In Croatia, the University Computing Centre (SRCE) at the University of Zagreb has become a focal point for planning, designing and supporting the digital infrastructure for the academic and scientific community in Croatia (OECD, 2023[74]). In Norway, the Quality Assurance Agency for Education (NOKUT) has co-ordinated the establishment of eight Centres of Excellence in Higher Education (SFU), starting with a Centre of Excellence in Teacher Education (ProTed) (NOKUT, n.d.[75]). Similarly, the Katapult network in the Netherlands supports Centres of Expertise, which foster collaboration between employers and universities of applied science (UAS) to increase relevance and innovation in education (Katapult, n.d.[76]). The advantage of this approach is that it can incentivise institutions to take responsibility for leading pedagogical enhancement as well as institutional profiling and specialisation.

Based on consultations between the OECD team and key higher education stakeholders in Lithuania, the most relevant model for Lithuania may be to expand the responsibility of a limited number of HEIs to lead national pedagogical enhancement. The government currently distributes approximately EUR 500 million of funding to all HEIs each year, to be invested in the development of their internal pedagogical competence development systems. In future funding rounds, the government could consider adding a competitive element to this, inviting HEIs to compete for a national “Centre of Excellence” status (like the Norway model). While Vytautas Magnus University, Vilnius University and the collegiate centre led by Kaunas Technological University might – on paper – be the most obvious candidates to take on such a role (since they are currently the only HEIs offering initial and continuous teacher training for primary and secondary education), a transparent and open application procedure should give all interested and capable HEIs the opportunity to obtain this status. As noted, several HEIs have started to set up institutionally based teaching and learning centres. The actions of HEIs could, in time, be supplemented by a stronger role played by SKVC in supporting sectoral enhancement. But this will be conditional on the agency moving towards a more risk-based and light-touch quality assurance system (see Recommendation 12, Section 3.2).

Roadmap to implement Recommendation 17

To implement Recommendation 17, Lithuania is recommended to focus on the following action points:

• Action point 1: Consider launching a competitive call for “Centres of Excellence” in higher education teaching, to scale expertise in existing teaching and learning centres.

• Action point 2: Consider strengthening the role of SKVC in supporting pedagogical enhancement in higher education, as outlined in Recommendation 12 (see Section 3.2).

References

[70] Advance HE (2019), UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education, Advance HE, https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/teaching-and-learning/ukpsf (accessed on 24 June 2022).

[69] Amundsen, G., H. Karlsen and S. Lid (2021), Underviserundersøkelsen 2021 – hovedrapport [The Teachers’ Survey 2021 - main report], NOKUT, Oslo, https://www.nokut.no/globalassets/studiebarometeret/underviserundersokelsen/underviserundersokelsen-2021_hovedrapport_10-2021.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2023).

[56] ASOO (2024), Professional Development, Agency for Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education (ASOO), https://www.asoo.hr/en/professional-development/ (accessed on 13 December 2024).

[50] Broberg, N. and G. Golden (2023), “How are governments navigating the digital higher education landscape?”, OECD Education Working Papers No. 303 OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/93468ccb-en (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[60] Cedefop (2014), Guiding principles on professional development of trainers in VET, Thessaloniki, Cedefop, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/guiding-principles-professional-development-trainers-vet (accessed on 13 September 2024).

[55] Cedefop and University College Copenhagen (2022), Vocational education and training in Europe - Denmark: system description, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/vet-in-europe/systems/denmark-u2 (accessed on 10 September 2024).

[10] Council of Ministers of the EU (2018), Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships, Council of Ministers of the European Union (EU), Brussels, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0502%2801%29 (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[3] Council of the EU (2009), Council Recommendation on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(01)&qid=1611571795661 (accessed on 13 June 2024).

[68] de Groot, J. and R. Kouwenaar (2018), Professionalisation of university lecturers The UTQ and beyond, Universities of the Netherlands, The Hague, https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/documenten/Professionalisation%20of%20university%20lecturers.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2023).

[62] DfE (2023), Provider guide to delivering high-quality apprenticeships, UK Deparment for Education (DfE), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/provider-guide-to-delivering-high-quality-apprenticeships/provider-guide-to-delivering-high-quality-apprenticeships (accessed on 12 July 2024).

[4] ENQA (2015), Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education; European Students’ Union; European University Association; European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, Brussels, Belgium, http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2022).

[9] EUA (n.d.), IIEP - Institutional Evaluation Programme, European University Association (EUA) asbl, Brussels, https://www.iep-qaa.org/ (accessed on 26 April 2024).

[19] Gaebel, M. et al. (2018), Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area - Trends 2018, European University Association (EUA) asbl, Brussels, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/trends-2018-learning-and-teaching-in-the-european-higher-education-area.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024).

[31] Golden, G., L. Troy and T. Weko (2021), “How are higher education systems in OECD countries resourced? Evidence from an OECD Policy Survey”, OECD Education Working Papers, Vol. No. 259/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ac1fbad-en (accessed on 1 May 2024).

[58] HE-School Clusters (2018), Regionale VO-HO Netwerken: Focus 2018-2023 [Regional HE-School Networks: Focus 2018-2023], https://www.vohonetwerken.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VoHo-ConferentieA5-05-DRUKWERK.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2023).

[57] Huismann, A. and U. Hippach-Schneider (2021), Teachers’ and Trainers’ professional development to support inclusive and sustainable learning: Germany, Cedefop ReferNet thematic perspectives series, https://www.bibb.de/dokumente/pdf/DE_2021_Teachers_and_Trainers_Article_final.pdf.

[6] ISO (2024), ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems Requirements, The International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html (accessed on 25 April 2024).

[12] Jung, I. (2022), “Quality Assurance in Online, Open, and Distance Education”, in Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education, Springer Singapore, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_39-1.

[7] Kasperavičiūtė-Černiauskienė, R. and D. Serafinas (2018), “The adoption of ISO 9001 standard within higher education institutions in Lithuania: innovation diffusion approach”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 29/1-2, pp. 74-93, https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1164012 (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[76] Katapult (n.d.), Centres of expertise, https://www.wijzijnkatapult.nl/centres-of-expertise/? (accessed on 3 September 2024).

[44] Knyvienė, I. et al. (2017), “Lithuanian, Polish and Slovenian Case in Experience of Different Methods Using in a Student-Centred Process”, Socialinis ugdymas / Socialinė klasterizacija tvarioje visuomenėje [Social Education / Social Clustering in Sustainable Society], Vol. 45/1, pp. 14-28, https://portalcris.vdu.lt/server/api/core/bitstreams/30eafee3-3148-49d9-b85a-a78a408dc0e6/content (accessed on 28 April 2024).

[49] KPMPC (2022), 2022 metų KPMPC veiklos ataskaita [Annual Activity Report 2022], Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC), Vilnius, https://www.kpmpc.lt/kpmpc/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/KPMPC_2022_ataskaita.pdf.

[28] KPMPC (2021), Kompetencijų vertinimo institucijų akreditavimas [Accreditation of competence assessment institutions], Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC), Vilnius, https://kpmpc.lrv.lt/lt/profesinis-mokymas-822/kompetenciju-vertinimo-instituciju-akreditavimas-6245/ (accessed on 6 February 2025).

[22] KPMPC (2021), Lietuvos Profesijos Mokytojų Bendruomenės Veiklos Turinio Atvejo Analizės Atlikimo Ataskaita [Report on the Content Case Analysis of the Activities of the Lithuanian Association of Professional Teachers], Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC), Vilnius, https://www.kpmpc.lt/kpmpc/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/LT-profesijos-mokytoju-atvejo-analize_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2025).

[47] KPMPC (2021), Pedagogų kvalifikacijos tobulinimo poreikių nustatymo apklausos ataskaita [Survey report on the identification of teachers’ qualification improvement needs], Qualifications and Vocational Education and Training Development Centre (KPMPC), Vilnius, https://www.kpmpc.lt/kpmpc/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/KTP_apklausos_ataskaita_2021.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2025).

[23] KPMPC (2021), Profesinio Mokymo Metodinės Komisijos Nuostatai [Provisions Of The Methodological Commission For Vocational Training], KPMPC, https://www.kpmpc.lt/kpmpc/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2021-10-06_MK_nuostatai_redakcija1_final.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2025).

[14] KTU (2024), MA+ competences, Kaunas Technical University (KTU), Kaunas, https://admissions.ktu.edu/master/ma-plus-competences/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).

[29] Leišytė, L. et al. (2022), “The Teaching-Research Nexus in the Lithuanian Higher Education Compared to Other European Higher Education Systems”, in Huang, F., T. Aarrevaarra and U. Teichler (eds.), Teaching and Research in the Knowledge-Based Society, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04439-7_8 (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[53] LERA (2024), Lithuanian Educational Research Association (LERA), https://lera.lt/en/home/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).

[25] LSMU (2024), Study Quality Monitoring Feedback, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LSMU), https://lsmu.lt/en/for-students/quality-assurance/monitoring-and-feedback/ (accessed on 29 April 2024).

[18] LSMU (2021), STUDY QUALITY GUIDE OF THE LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF, Lithuanian University of Health Scienes (LSMU), Vilnius, https://lsmu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2.-STUDY-QUALITY-GUIDE-_EN_final.pdf.

[11] Manatos, M., C. Sarrico and M. Rosa (2017), “An integrative approach to quality management in higher education?”, TQM Journal, Vol. 29/2, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2016-0009 (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[8] MOSTA (2008), Kas lemia studijų kokybę? [What determines study quality?], Lithuanian Science and Education Monitoring and Analysis Centre (MOSTA), Vilnius, https://www.nsa.smm.lt/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ams_SPA8_Kas-lemia-studiju-kokybe.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).

[63] MYH (n.d.), Learning on the job (LIA), https://www.myh.se/yrkeshogskolan/for-utbildningsanordare/larande-i-arbete-lia (accessed on 5 December 2024).

[43] National Audit Office of Lithuania (2021), Ar užtikrinama studijų kokybė aukštosiose mokyklose [Is the quality of studies ensured in higher education institutions], National Audit Office of Lithuania, Vilnius, https://www.eurosai.org/en/databases/audits/Is-the-quality-of-studies-ensured-in-higher-education-institutions/ (accessed on 4 March 2024).

[42] Navickienė, V. and V. Salienė (2017), “Substantiation of Need for Educational Competences of Higher Education Lecturers: Document Analysis”, Pedagogika, Vol. 126/2, pp. 5-17, https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2017.16 (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[75] NOKUT (n.d.), The Centres for Excellence in Education Initiative (SFU), Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), https://www.nokut.no/en/norwegian-education/higher-education/the-centres-for-excellence-in-education-initiative-sfu/#:~:text=The%20Centres%20for%20Excellence%20in%20Education%20Initiative%20('SFU%2Dordningen,administered%20this%20initiative%20since%202010. (accessed on 28 June 2023).

[51] Nordplus (n.d.), Nordplus, https://www.nordplus.lt/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).

[54] OECD (2025), “Ensuring quality in VET and higher education: Getting quality assurance right”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 118, https://doi.org/10.1787/812ff006-en.

[27] OECD (2025), “Fostering excellence in higher education and VET: Going beyond quality assurance”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 119, https://doi.org/10.1787/e6862056-en.

[16] OECD (2024), “The state of academic careers in OECD countries: An evidence review”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 91, https://doi.org/10.1787/5cc2d673-en (accessed on 1 March 2024).

[74] OECD (2023), Advancing Digital Maturity in Croatia’s Higher Education System, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3c8d452-en (accessed on 4 September 2024).

[61] OECD (2023), Building Future-Ready Vocational Education and Training Systems, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28551a79-en (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[26] OECD (2023), Ensuring Quality Digital Higher Education in Hungary, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en (accessed on 5 April 2023).

[32] OECD (2023), “Institutional missions and profiles in higher education in Lithuania”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 77, https://doi.org/10.1787/286832a7-en (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[33] OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[46] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[72] QAA Scotland (2024), Tertiary sector enhancement activity, QAA Scotland, Glasgow, https://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/tertiary-enhancement-projects/tertiary-quality-enhancement-activity (accessed on 4 September 2024).

[52] Republic of Lithuania (2023), Išdalinti „Kokybės konkurso 2023“ apdovanojimai [The “Quality Competition 2023” awards have been distributed], https://smpf.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/isdalinti-kokybes-konkurso-2023-apdovanojimai/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).

[21] Republic of Lithuania (2023), On the Approval of the Description of Mandatory Competencies for the Career Stages of Researchers at Higher Education and Research Institutions, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.vu.lt/site_files/Description_of_Mandatory_Competences_for_the_Career_Stages_of_Researchers_at_Higher_Education_and_Research_Institutions.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2024).

[20] Republic of Lithuania (2020), Dėl Aukštųjų mokyklų dėstytojų kompetencijų tobulinimo gairių patvirtinimo [Guidelines for Improvement of the Academic Performance of Teachers at Higher Education Institutions], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/9b11a070b22111eab9d9cd0c85e0b745 (accessed on 20 February 2024).

[41] Republic of Lithuania (2020), Dėl Aukštųjų mokyklų dėstytojų kompetencijų tobulinimo gairių patvirtinimo [Guidelines for Improvement of the Academic Performance of Teachers at Higher Education Institutions], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct/9b11a070b22111eab9d9cd0c85e0b745 (accessed on 20 February 2024).

[35] Republic of Lithuania (2020), Dėl Mokslo doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the Doctorate of Science regulations], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/71ae1e80993e11eaa51db668f0092944/asr (accessed on 17 January 2025).

[30] Republic of Lithuania (2020), Dėl Rekomendacijų aukštųjų mokyklų dėstytojų darbo laiko sandarai patvirtinimo [On of the Recommendations for the working time structure of teachers of higher education institutions], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/e0fadb6293bd11eaa51db668f0092944?jfwid=mmceopasq (accessed on 29 February 2024).

[15] Republic of Lithuania (2018), Lietuvos Respublikos Profesinio Mokymo [Vocational Training Law of Republic of Lithuania], Republic of Lithuania, Vilnius, https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/legalAct.html?documentId=093a9010eb0b11e7acd7ea182930b17f (accessed on 17 January 2025).

[36] Republic of Lithuania (2017), Dėl Meno doktorantūros nuostatų patvirtinimo [On the approval of the regulations for the Doctoral Studies in Arts], Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/c7a7c152f2f811e6be918a531b2126ab?jfwid=f4nne5l3d (accessed on 23 January 2024).

[38] Republic of Lithuania (2017), Įsakymas Dėl Pedagoginių Ir Psichologinių Žinių Kurso Vykdymo Tvarkos Aprašo Patvirtinimo [Order On The Approval Of The Description Of The Procedure For The Course Of Pedagogical And Psychological Knowledge], Minister of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/8a4e5ae05d0511e7a53b83ca0142260e?jfwid=-9dzqnu77q.

[2] Republic of Lithuania (2017), Lietuvos Respublikos profesinio mokymo įstatymo Nr. VIII-450 pakeitimo įstatymas [Law on Amendment of the Law No. VIII-450 of the Republic of Lithuania on Vocational Education], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/b0b6cda0eb0a11e7a5cea258c39305f6 (accessed on 15 January 2025).

[34] Republic of Lithuania (2016), Descriptor of the General Requirements for the Implementation of Studies. Last amended on 7 July 2023., Lithuanian Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://www.skvc.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/411_e8a9971b4397a4bd29ca56719501de8e.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2023).

[1] Republic of Lithuania (2009), Higher Education and Research Act, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/548a2a30ead611e59b76f36d7fa634f8 (accessed on 23 January 2024).

[37] Republic of Lithuania (2008), DĖL MOKYTOJŲ IR PAGALBOS MOKINIUI SPECIALISTŲ (IŠSKYRUS PSICHOLOGUS) ATESTACIJOS NUOSTATŲ PATVIRTINIM [Certification Provisions For Teachers And Student Support Specialists (Except Psychologists)], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.332784 (accessed on 15 January 2025).

[5] Republic of Lithuania (2007), Dėl Nacionalinės studijų programos patvirtinimo [Regarding the approval of the National Education Programme], Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.312950?jfwid=elqkf8lqh (accessed on 25 April 2024).

[64] Sharmini, S. and R. Spronken-Smith (2019), “The PhD – is it out of alignment?”, Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 39/4, pp. 821-833, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1693514 (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[48] ŠMSM (n.d.), Vocational education and training, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (ŠMSM), Vilnius, https://smsm.lrv.lt/en/sector-activities/education_1/vocational-education-and-training/ (accessed on 6 February 2025).

[24] SoLAR (n.d.), What is Learning Analytics?, https://www.solaresearch.org/about/what-is-learning-analytics/ (accessed on 21 June 2022).

[65] Staring, F. et al. (2022), “Digital higher education: Emerging quality standards, practices and supports”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, Vol. 281, https://www.oecd.org/education/digital-higher-education-f622f257-en.htm (accessed on 17 March 2023).

[45] Strata (2019), Išorinio vertinimo reikšmė Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų veiklos kaitai ]The impact of external evaluation for the change of activities of Lithuanian higher schools], Government Strategic Analysis Centre (Strata), Vilnius, https://strata.gov.lt/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/20190318-isorinio-vertinimo-reiksme-AM-veiklos-kaitai.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2025).

[73] SURF (2024), About SURF, https://www.surf.nl/en/about (accessed on 1 May 2021).

[39] SVIS (2024), Profesijos Mokytojų Amžius Spalio 1 D. [Age Of Professional Teachers On October 1], https://rsvis3.emokykla.lt/cognos/bi/?perspective=classicviewer&id=i7E91ED668EF44F96AAB22010744BB552&objRef=i7E91ED668EF44F96AAB22010744BB552&action=run&format=HTML&cmPropStr=%7B%22id%22%3A%22i7E91ED668EF44F96AAB22010744BB552%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22report%2 (accessed on 6 May 2024).

[40] SVIS (2024), Profesijos Mokytojų Kvalifikacinės Kategorijos Spalio 1 D [Qualification Categories of Professional Teachers On October 1], https://rsvis3.emokykla.lt/cognos/bi/?perspective=classicviewer&id=i86C5CD98BC3344D9ADCDF71FF6118CC3&objRef=i86C5CD98BC3344D9ADCDF71FF6118CC3&action=run&format=HTML&cmPropStr=%7B%22id%22%3A%22i86C5CD98BC3344D9ADCDF71FF6118CC3%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22report%2 (accessed on 6 May 2024).

[71] TL, N. (n.d.), National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/ (accessed on 1 May 2021).

[67] UHR (2018), Nasjonale veiledende retningslinjer for UH-pedagogisk basiskompetanse [National guiding guidelines for HE teaching basic competence], Universitets- og høgskolerådet (UHR) [Universities and Colleges Association (UHR)], https://www.uhr.no/temasider/karrierepolitikk-og-merittering/nasjonale-veiledende-retningslinjer-for-uh-pedagogisk-basiskompetanse/ (accessed on 22 January 2025).

[66] Universities of the Netherlands (2022), Number of academic teaching staff with University Teaching Qualification (UTQ) [dataset], Universities of the Netherlands, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/petra.pieck/viz/W_006ENGBKOcirkel/Graph (accessed on 5 March 2023).

[59] Videnscenterportalen (2024), Hvem er Videnscentrene? [Who are the Knowledge Centres], https://videnscenterportalen.dk/hvem-er-videnscentrene/ (accessed on 15 December 2024).

[13] VILNIUS TECH (2023), ORDER ON THE ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STUDY PROCESS IN 2023-2024, Vilnius Gediminas University of Technology (VILNIUS TECH), Vilnius, https://vilniustech.lt/files/4833/241/12/14_0/Study_process-2023-2024.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).

[17] Zhang, T. (2022), National Developments in Learning and Teaching in Europe: A report from the Leadership and Organisation for Teaching and Learning, European University Association asbl, Brussels, https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/lotus%20report_2022_fin2.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2022).

Notes

← 1.  These institutions are: Vilnius University, Vytautas Magnus University, Mykolas Romeris University, and the European Humanitarian University.

← 2.  It is possible to distinguish three main approaches to the management of professional learning in higher education: 1) a “self-management” approach, which consist of academics being responsible for enhancing their competencies and to identify opportunities for professional learning; a “team management” approach, where a research group or other team of people within a specific discipline or administrative unit engage in professional learning through mentorship, employee-to-employee training, or informal relationships; and 2) a “centralised management” approach, where professional learning is institutionalised within the higher education institution, or at regional or national level (e.g. through the establishment of teaching and learning centres in institutions, formal qualifications or national associations) (OECD, 2024[16]).