What FINEEC expects from higher education teaching, and what it means for course materials

The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre FINEEC (Karvi in Finnish) audits every Finnish higher education institution at regular intervals. The new audit manual for 2025–2030 spells out in more detail than before what is expected of degree programmes and their teaching. Read the criteria from the course-material point of view and many of the expectations land directly on the teacher’s desk: what kind of material courses use and how it connects to the intended learning outcomes.

We went through two FINEEC documents: the pilot-phase audit manual (publications 4:2025) and the evaluation of the state and renewal of higher education pedagogy (publications 22:2023). Here are the points that concern course materials and teaching design, and how Bruukki helps you respond to them.

Learning outcomes and alignment are at the core of the audit

Evaluation area II of the audit model covers teaching and guidance that promote learning. According to the manual, degree programmes must have clearly defined learning outcomes. Programme design must also ensure that teaching and learning methods, learning environments and the assessment of learning support reaching those outcomes (audit manual, p. 14).

In practice, every material and assignment should be justifiable from the course objectives. In Bruukki this is the starting point. You give the course objectives or curriculum as the basis for the material. The AI suggests content against them, and you decide the final result.

Diverse student groups call for differentiation

The manual expects programmes to have appropriate practices for taking the needs of diverse student groups into account in teaching (p. 14). Students on the same course can have very different starting levels and backgrounds.

With Bruukki you create several versions of the same content: a revision version, a standard one and an advanced one. On language courses the versions can be tied to each student’s own field, so engineering and nursing students work on the same topic in their own professional context.

Working-life relevance and up-to-date content belong in every course

According to the manual, programme design must ensure student-centredness, a research basis, working-life perspectives and up-to-date content (p. 13). Students’ generic working-life skills must also be supported and developed during their studies (p. 14).

FINEEC’s evaluation of higher education pedagogy carries the same message: “Higher education institutions should strengthen the working life perspective in all higher education” (summary, p. 8).

For material work this means two things. Course content stays current when an update no longer takes several evenings. Working-life examples make it into the material when producing field-specific texts and exercises is fast.

FINEEC recommends setting ground rules for AI use

In the same evaluation’s recommendations, FINEEC states that “policies on taking advantage of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning should be outlined” (summary, p. 8). The recommendation does not take a position on individual tools. It does make clear that AI in teaching needs ground rules.

When your institution sets those policies, the choice of tool matters. In Bruukki the teacher always decides the final result. Data is stored in the EU, and Bruukki does not use your content to train language models. The division of responsibility is clear: AI suggests, the teacher decides.

Wellbeing improves when invisible work gets lighter

The evaluation’s first recommendation concerns the wellbeing of teachers and students: it “should be supported more and with diverse methods” (summary, p. 8). Creating and updating course materials is a large share of teaching’s invisible workload. When it speeds up, time is freed for teaching and guidance.

No tool passes an audit on anyone’s behalf

FINEEC does not evaluate or recommend individual tools. An audit looks at the institution’s entire quality system, and the institution itself is responsible for it. Bruukki helps with the part that happens at the teacher’s desk: materials tied to learning outcomes, differentiation and up-to-date content. That is where a teacher’s time goes, and that is where the audit criteria turn into everyday practice.

Try it on your own course

If you teach in higher education, try Bruukki for free on your own course. For institutions, we are happy to arrange a demo: contact us at bruukki.com/en/contact/.

Read also: University of Turku and LUT University adopt Bruukki.

Sources

• Korkeakoulujen auditoinnit 2025–2030. Pilottivaiheen auditointikäsikirja. (Audits of higher education institutions 2025–2030: pilot-phase audit manual.) Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, publications 4:2025, in Finnish. Evaluation area II, pp. 13–14.
• Korkeakoulupedagogiikan tila ja uudistaminen -arviointi. (Evaluation of the state and renewal of higher education pedagogy.) Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, publications 22:2023. English summary, pp. 7–8.