Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 713–736 | Cite as

What affects the teaching style of German professors? Evidence from two nationwide surveys

  • Uwe Wilkesmann
  • Sabine Lauer
Allgemeiner Teil

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal potential influences on two different teaching approaches, one that is student-focused and one that is teacher-focused. Five hypotheses were derived and tested with two representative surveys among German professors in the years 2009 and 2011. Regression analyses indicate that selective incentives for teaching have a very weak effect on the teaching approach, whereas the particular scientific disciplines seem to exert a considerable impact. In addition, the following influential factors that foster a student-focused teaching approach were identified: continuing pedagogical training (only for professors at research universities) and interaction among professors regarding teaching. In terms of gender differences, it was detected that female professors at research universities prefer a more student-focused approach to teaching.

Keywords

Governance Nationwide survey Selective incentives Teaching approaches 

Was beeinflusst den Lehrstil von deutschen Professorinnen und Professoren? Ergebnisse zweier bundesweiter Befragungen

Zusammenfassung

In der folgenden Studie werden potentielle Einflussgrößen auf zwei verschiedene Lehrstile untersucht: studierenden- versus dozentenzentriert. Anhand zwei repräsentativer Befragungen unter deutschen Professorinnen und Professoren in den Jahren 2009 (Universitäten) und 2011 (Fachhochschulen) wurden fünf Hypothesen abgeleitet und geprüft. Regressionsanalytisch kann gezeigt werden, dass selektive Anreize für Lehraktivitäten nur einen sehr schwachen Effekt auf den Lehrstil ausüben, während die einzelnen wissenschaftlichen Disziplinen einen beträchtlichen Einfluss ausüben. Zusätzlich wurden folgende Faktoren identifiziert, die einen studierendenzentrierten Lehrstil begünstigen: Wenn eine didaktische Weiterbildung (gilt nur für Universitätsprofessorinnen) besucht wurde und wenn sich Professorinnen und Professoren über Lehrangelegenheiten miteinander austauschen. Bezüglich geschlechtsspezifischen Unterschieden wurde herausgefunden, dass Universitätsprofessorinnen

Schlüsselwörter

Bundesweite Befragung Governance Lehrstile Selektive Anreize 

References

  1. Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1985). The economics of agency. In J. W. Pratt, R. Zeckhauser, & K. J. Arrow (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business (pp. 37–51). Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Millikan, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckinghamshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Biester, C. (2013). Leistungsorientierte Vergütung in der Wissenschaft. Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse der neuen Professorenbesoldung (Performance-related budgeting in science. A theorical and empirical analysis of the new salary for professors). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  6. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195.Google Scholar
  7. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2009). Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Lehr-Orientierung und Lehr-Gestaltung von Hochschuldozierenden und subjektivem Kompetenzzuwachs bei Studierenden (The relationship between teaching-orientation and teaching design of university lecturers and a subjective increase in competence among students). In M. A. Meyer, M. Prenzel, & S. Hellekamps (Eds.), Perspektiven der Didaktik (Didactic perspectives) (pp. 277–291). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun, E., & Leidner, B. (2009). Academic course evaluation. Theoretical and empirical distinctions between self-rated gain in competences and satisfaction with teaching behavior. European Psychologist, 14(4), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.Google Scholar
  11. Federal Statistical Office (2012). Nichtmonetäre Hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen 1980–2012 (Non-monetary statistical key figures in higher education 1980–2012). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/BildungForschungKultur/Hochschulen/KennzahlenNichtmonetaer2110431127004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed: 30 March 2014.
  12. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Academics appreciate awards: a new aspect of incentives in research (No. 2531). CESifo working paper.Google Scholar
  14. Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González, C. (2011). Extending research on ‘conceptions of teaching’: Commonalities and differences in recent investigations. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jaeger, M., Leszczensky, M., Orr, D., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2005). Formelgebundene Mittelvergabe und Zielvereinbarungen als Instrumente der Budgetierung an deutschen Universitäten: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung (Formula-based funding budgets and target agreements as instruments of budgeting at German universities. Results from a nationwide survey). (HIS-Kurzinformation A13/2005). Hannover: HIS.Google Scholar
  18. Johannes, C., & Seidel, T. (2012). Professionalisierung von Hochschullehrenden. Lehrbezogene Vorstellungen, Wissensanwendung und Identitätsentwicklung in einem videobasierten Qualifikationsprogramm (Professionalization of university teachers—Teaching approaches, professional vision, and teacher identity in video-based training). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kember, D., & K. Kwan (2002). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 219–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 232–255). San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  21. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review Sociology, 24(8), 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krempkow, R., Landrock, U., & Schulz, P. (2012). Steuerung durch LOM? Eine Analyse zur leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe an Medizin-Fakultäten in Deutschland (Steering through performance orientated funding allocation (LOM)? An analysis of performance-related budgeting at German medical faculties). In U. Wilkesmann & C. J. Schmid (Eds.), Hochschule als Organisation (University as Organization) (pp. 245–260). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lacey, C., & Saleh, A. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. A paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Annual Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 11–12.Google Scholar
  24. Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.Google Scholar
  25. Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Troulloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lübeck, D. (2010). Wird fachspezifisch unterschiedlich gelehrt? (Are there subject-specific differences in teaching?). Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 5(2), 7–24.Google Scholar
  28. McKenna, A. F., & Yalvac, B. (2007). Characterizing engineering faculty’s teaching approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metz-Göckel, S., Kamphans, M., & Scholkmann, A. (2012). Hochschuldidaktische Forschung zur Lehrqualität und Lernwirksamkeit. Ein Rückblick, Überblick und Ausblick (Didactic research on teaching quality and teaching efficiency in higher education. Retrospective, insights and outlook). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary context: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nevgi, A., Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2004). The effect of discipline on motivational and self-efficacy beliefs and on approaches to teaching of Finnish and English university teachers. A paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher Education Conference, June 18–21.Google Scholar
  34. Nowakowski, A., Vervecken, D., Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2012). Was Hochschuldozierende aus Lehrevaluations-Rückmeldungen lernen können. Der differenzielle Einfluss prozess- versus ergebnisorientierten Feedbacks auf Lehrorientierungen (What university lecturers can learn from evaluation feedback—The differential impact of process- versus outcome-oriented feedback on teaching orientations). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E.C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Lévesqui, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Postareff, L. (2007). Teaching in higher education. From content-focused to learning-focused approaches to teaching (Research Report 214).University of Helsinki: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  38. Prosser, M., & K. Trigwell (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Prosser, M., & K. Trigwell (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers’ experience of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanchez, J. (2012). Motivational triggers of faculty members: The process of teaching practice transformation. University of New Mexico. http://hdl.handle.net/1928/17500. Accessed: 14 Jan. 2014.
  44. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  46. Smeenk, S., Teelken, C., Eisinga, R., & Doorewaard, H. (2009). Managerialism, organizational commitment, and quality of job performances among European university employees. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 589–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teaching characteristics. Higher Education, 55(3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 5–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vogel, M. P. (2009). Exploring the conditions for academic teachers’ informal collegial learning about teaching. A social network approach. Educate, 9(2), 18–36.Google Scholar
  52. Watzlawick, P. (1976). How real is real? Confusion, disinformation, communication. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  53. Wilkesmann, U. (2013). Effects of transactional and transformational governance on academic teaching—Empirical evidence from two types of higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2010). Ist der Lehrpreis ein Leistungsanreiz für die Lehre? (What can teaching awards really achieve in regards to teaching performance?). In P. Tremp (Ed.), ‚Ausgezeichnete Lehre!’ Lehrpreise an Hochschulen (Teaching Awards at Universities) (pp. 39–55). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  55. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2011). Lehren lohnt sich (nicht)?—Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Erhebung zu den Auswirkungen leistungsorientierter Steuerung auf die universitäre Lehrtätigkeit (Does teaching pay off (or not)?—Findings from a Germany-wide survey examining the impact of performance-related steering on university teaching activities). Soziale Welt, 62(3), 251–278.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2012). The impacts of new governance on teaching at German universities. Findings from a national survey. Higher Education, 63(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2014). Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching motivation. Evidence-based HRM, 2(1), 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilkesmann, M., & Wilkesmann, U. (2011). A framework for knowledge transfer as interaction between experts and novices supported by technology. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 41(2), 96–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Organisationsforschung, Sozial- und WeiterbildungsmanagementTU DortmundDortmundDeutschland

Personalised recommendations