Development paths of university teachers during a pedagogical development course
Abstract
The aim of the study is to analyse the development of university teachers’ pedagogical expertise during a five-month, 10-credit pedagogical development course. The data consists of reflection diaries of 18 participants who participated in the course. The method of content analysis was applied to identify different development paths from the reflection diaries. The paths differ from each other in terms of development in teaching practices, conceptions and teacher identity. The results suggest that some teachers resist changing their understanding about teaching and learning while others describe strong changes both in their conceptions of teaching and learning, as well as in their teacher identity. These results are reflected in light of boundary crossing theory presented by Akkerman and Bakker (2011).Keywords
expertise development, pedagogical development, development paths, university teachers, pedagogical development courses, reflection diariesReferences
Åkerlind, G. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher – Variation in the meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390.
Åkerlind, G. (2007). Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 21–37.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Beck, J., & Young, M. (2005). The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 183–197.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107–128.
Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2004). Does practice make perfect? A slow and discontinuous process. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert (pp. 73–95). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3-4), 381–391.
Ho, A., Watkins, D., & Kelly, M. (2001). The conceptual change approach to improving teaching and learning: An evaluation of a Hong Kong staff development programme. Higher Education, 42, 143–169.
Knight, P. T. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Luedekke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and “teaching-scholarship”. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 213–228.
McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (2000). Reflection: Issues related to improving professors’ teaching and students’ learning. Instructional Science, 28, 363–385.
Martin, E., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). How university teaching changes teachers: Affective as well as cognitive challenges. Higher Education, 49, 389–412.
Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 2, 135–146.
Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary context: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 4, 405–417.
Oosterheert, I. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2003). Knowledge construction in learning to teach: The role of dynamic sources. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(2), 157–173.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 557–571.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical training in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43.
Sikes, P. (2006). Working in a “new” university: In the shadow of the Research Assessment Exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 555–568.
Stes, A., Clement, M., & Van Petegem, P. (2007). The effectiveness of a faculty training programme: Long-term and institutional impact. International Journal for Academic Development, 12, 99–109.
Winberg, C. (2008). Teaching engineering/engineering teaching: Interdisciplinary collaboration and the construction of academic identities. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 353–367.
Published
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2015 Liisa Postareff, Anne Nevgi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
