Professors' Perceived Barriers and Incentives for Teaching Improvement

Abstract

Continuous engagement in teaching improvement is required if professors are to gain the essential knowledge base for effective teaching in ever changing contexts. However, research suggests that professors are not always willing to engage in teaching improvement activities and thus may employ less effective teaching methods that can, in turn, negatively impact student learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate which factors professors perceived as being hindering or motivating to engage in teaching improvement activities. Data were collected from 146 professors from a Canadian research-intensive university. Participants responded to two open-ended questions comprising a subset of a larger survey on engagement in teaching improvement. Specifically, the questions elicited professors' perceived barriers and incentives for teaching improvement. Lack of time and a university culture that was not conducive to teaching were identified as the most significant barriers. Greater recognition for teaching and creating a reward system for excellence in teaching were highlighted as the most desirable incentives. Moreover, a comparison was made between tenured and non-tenured participants with respect to perceptions of incentives and barriers. A university culture that is not conducive to teaching was perceived as more hindering for teaching improvement for non-tenured professors. Findings are insightful for stakeholders, in particular educational developers and policy makers to develop and implement strategies to remove barriers and reinforce motivating factors for teaching development.

What Motivates Biology Instructors to Engage and Persist in Teaching Professional Development?

“…The aim of this research was to explore the factors contributing to instructors’ motivation to persist in a long-term, teaching professional development program supported by the AACR project. This topic of motivation to persist in such programs is generally understudied in education research ( Stenfors-Hayes et al , 2010 ; Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012a , b ; Sabagh and Saroyan, 2014 ). We have provided a rich description of the motivations of 19 college biology instructors over the course of the first 2.5 years of a 5-year study.…”

“…There are many barriers that can prevent instructors from participating in teaching professional development, with lack of time as a primary factor cited in previous research ( Henderson and Dancy, 2008 ; Stenfors-Hayes et al , 2010 ; Sabagh and Saroyan, 2014 ; Andrews and Lemons, 2015 ). Likewise, time limitations were mentioned by nearly all of our participants.…”

“…Only a limited literature base exists that examines college instructors’ motivations to engage and persist in teaching professional development ( Stenfors-Hayes et al , 2010 ; Bouwma-­Gearhart, 2012a , b ; Sabagh and Saroyan, 2014 ). In recognition of this deficit, Bouwma-Gearhart investigated the experiences of STEM instructors at an R1 institution who had engaged in a program that included activities ranging from periodic dinner conversations to semester-long courses on pedagogy ( Bouwma-­Gearhart, 2012a ).…”

“…Bouwma-­Gearhart hypothesized that instructors initially seek out teaching professional development due to external factors, but intrinsic motivation is critical for persistence. To the best of our knowledge, only Bouwma-Gearhart has studied motivation among STEM instructors who actually engaged in teaching professional development; others have investigated potential motivation for teaching professional development among a broad sample of STEM instructors who may or may not have engaged in teaching professional development ( Stenfors-Hayes et al , 2010 ; Sabagh and Saroyan, 2014 ).…”

Nuevo método de evaluación de contenidos prácticos en la docencia universitaria

“…Eran unos 500 cuadernos y el tiempo disponible para la corrección era reducido, ya que los cuadernos eran devueltos a los alumnos con las correcciones oportunas antes del examen final. Esto reducía la posibilidad de implementar nuevas metodologías y mejorar la docencia ya que el tiempo estaba comprometido por las correcciones (Sabagh y Saroyan, 2014). El segundo punto de mejora que se identificó fue el desaprovechamiento de los alumnos de las 12 horas presenciales de prácticas en el laboratorio.…”