Teaching in a Research University: Professors' Conceptions, Practices, and Disciplinary Differences.

Abstract

This study surveyed faculty at an elite private research (Ivy League) university on their attitudes toward teaching and their teaching practices. A total of 115 faculty several schools within the university completed a 68-item questionnaire on how they learned teach, what motivated them invest time and effort in their teaching, what were their conceptions of the goals of undergraduate instruction in their respective departments, what teaching methods they used, and what were their perceptions of the material they taught. The large majority of faculty reported that they did not receive any orderly, systematic preparation for university teaching, with the primary source of their pedagogical knowledge being their own classroom experiences as teachers. Internal satisfaction and positive student feedback were the prime motivators for investment in teaching, and most respondents used the lecture method of instruction. Providing students with current domain-related knowledge was not highly rated as a goal. Faculty in mathematics, the sciences, and engineering reported more departmental emphasis on teaching than faculty education, the humanities, and social sciences, and also reported more use of problem-solving and writing on overhead projectors or blackboards in the classroom. (Contains 36 references.) (MDM) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made the original document. ******************************************************************************** Teaching in a Research University: Professors' Conceptions, Practices, and Disciplinary Differences Nira Hativa School of Education, Tel Aviv University Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March 197, Chicago, Ill. Abstract This study reports results of a survey on teaching issues that was administered faculty a private research (Ivy League) university. The survey examined faculty perceptions regarding five questions: How do university professors learn teach? What motivates them invest time and effort in their teaching? What are their conceptions of the goals of undergraduate instruction in their respective departments? What teaching methods and practices do they most frequently use? And finally, what are their perceptions of the material they teach? Responses are presented for the whole population and are also broken down on gender, academic rank, teaching experience, and disciplinary differences. Results tap important issues such as effects of reflection and of institutionalized support for teaching on instruction, and teacher isolation. Several of the findings stand in contrast with accepted notions and expectations.This study reports results of a survey on teaching issues that was administered faculty a private research (Ivy League) university. The survey examined faculty perceptions regarding five questions: How do university professors learn teach? What motivates them invest time and effort in their teaching? What are their conceptions of the goals of undergraduate instruction in their respective departments? What teaching methods and practices do they most frequently use? And finally, what are their perceptions of the material they teach? Responses are presented for the whole population and are also broken down on gender, academic rank, teaching experience, and disciplinary differences. Results tap important issues such as effects of reflection and of institutionalized support for teaching on instruction, and teacher isolation. Several of the findings stand in contrast with accepted notions and expectations. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Nira Hativa TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ff/his document has been reproduced as received the person or organization originating it Minor changes have been made improve reproduction qualtty Points of vtew or opinions slated in this document do not necessarily represent official OE RI position or policy Teaching in a Research University 2 Research and teaching are the most important tasks of the research-university professor. However, in contrast with highly visible research activities such as grant proposals, publications, talks in conferences and colloquia, peer discussion, or collaboration of several researchers, instruction is quite a non-cooperative and invisible venture. Therefore, teaching sources have not produced much explicit knowledge about university instruction. Though, research sources have not generated such knowledge either. Research on teaching has traditionally concentrated on the pre-college level and those studies that were done at the college level primarily concentrated on analyses of student ratings of instructors. Students' ratings however, cannot produce knowledge about important issues such as teacher thinking and beliefs which currently are a major research interest at the pre-college level. Research on teaching at the pre-college level has shifted its focus in the last 15 years from trying study the world of teaching as a public, social phenomenon trying understand how teachers define their own situations. (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986, p. 505). The attempt here is understand how teachers make sense of their and what are their perceptions and beliefs regarding instruction. Results indicate that teachers develop and hold implicit theories about their students, about the subject matter that they teach, about their roles and responsibilities, and about how they should (Clark, 1988). These theories influence teachers' actions in the classroom and thus play an important role in teaching (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Thompson, 1992) and consequently on what is learned by students (Clark & Peterson, 1986). Thompson (1992) explains that teachers' beliefs act as filters through which teachers interpret and ascribe meaning their experiences as they interact with children and the subject matter. (pp. 138-139). Therefore, to understand teaching teachers' perspectives we have understand the beliefs with which they define their work (Nespor, 1987, p. 323). In comparison with the pre-college level, research efforts at the college level regarding teachers' thought-processes, theories and beliefs, have been meager. A comprehensive summary of research on these topics (Clark & Peterson, 1986) has not identified previous studies at the college level whereas a similar summary of research on teaching in higher education (Dunkin, 1986) has not identified previous studies on these topics. Since 1986, studies on teacher thinking at the college level that relate the present study have involved teachers' reflection on their work, that is, on their engagement in self-evaluation or self-assessment (Amundsen, Gryspeerdt, & Moxness, 1993). Teacher reflection is perceived as a strategy for improving instruction as it provides informative feedback instructors (Amundsen et al., 1993; Paulsen & Feldman, 1995). Reflection promotes instructors' active learning classroom experience, rather than merely receiving experience passively or responding it automatically (McAlpine & Weston, 1996; Rando & Menges, 1991). A different kind of study of teacher thinking (Hativa, 1996) illustrates how a university teacher's thinking and beliefs regarding his instruction and his students affected his classroom behavior and students' learning.The study presented here aims increase our knowledge about university professors' thinking and beliefs regarding teaching and students, and also about disciplinary differences regarding these issues. Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning have attracted a growing research interest in recent years (e.g., Hativa & Marincovich, 1995). This study concentrates on a research university because of the substantial conflict between research and teaching with teaching carrying much lesser rewards. Smart and Ethington (1995) show that faculty in different Carnegie-based types of higher-education institutions (research, comprehensive, liberal arts, and two-year) attach different levels of importance different goals for undergraduate education. This findings suggests that faculty thinking and beliefs should be examined separately for the different types of institutions.To keep the survey form reasonably short, only five questions out of all those related teacher thinking and beliefs that may affect professors' classroom instruction are examined here. The basis for selection was the interest preferences of the researcher and of the university administrators who supported the study. These questions are next described.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.