Abstract
Attitudes and values of academic staff in a Scottish polytechnic were measured by means of a survey and a Q sort. Seven significant factors emerged from the rotated factor analysis, which represented groupings of staff who shared attitudes (I = Pro- student autonomy (student focus), II = Traditionalists, III = Pro- student autonomy (staff focus), IV = Staff under pressure, V = Seniors, VI = The Professionals and VII = Defensive Traditionalists). Innovators were found to share certain characteristics, and tended to be concentrated in factor groups I and V. All groups valued and enjoyed teaching, though other aspects of the academic role were valued by one or two groups only. Senior lecturers tended to enjoy course development and administration. Gender differences were not marked, though women were over represented in the factor I group. Faculty differences were also small, but pointed to Science faculty staff being somewhat more traditional than others. Furthermore, science faculty staff endorsed the higher levels of intellectual and ethical development less strongly than staff from other faculties. Results are discussed in the light of professional and institutional changes taking place in higher education in the U.K. at present.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bess, J.L. (1982).University Organization. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Bowen, H.C. (1907).Froebel and education by self-activity. London: William Heinemann.
Brown, S.R. (1980).Political Subjectivity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966).Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Child, D. (1970).The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London and New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Collins English Dictionary (1991). (3rd edition). Glasgow: Harper Collins.
Creaser, J.W. (1955). ‘An aid to calculating Q-sort factor arrays’,Journal of Clinical Psychology 11, 195–196.
Douglas, J. (1971)Understanding everyday life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Entwistle, N. (1981). ‘Contrasting perspectives on learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.),The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Falchikov, N., and Heron, P.A. (1993). ‘Approaches to studying and stress in undergraduate students: an exploratory investigation’. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). ‘Teacher stress and burnout: an international review’,Educational Research 29, 146–152.
Moses, I. (1988).Academic Staff Evaluation and Development. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Moses, I. (1989). ‘The roles of academic staff’, in Edwards, H., and Barraclough, S. (eds.),Research and Development in Higher Education: Volume II. Sydney: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Perry, W.G. (1970).Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rogers, C.R. (1969).Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
Ryan, D. (1984).Development and Constraint: Innovations in Teaching Methods and Staff Development in the Scottish Central Institutions. Glasgow: The Queen's College.
Saljo, R. (1984). ‘Learning from Reading’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (eds.),The Experience of Learning, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Savoy, L. (1990). ‘Sources of stress on trainee lecturers for further and higher education’,Journal of Further and Higher Education 14(2), 94–104.
Skinner, B.F. (1953).Science and human behavior. New York: Appleton.
Whitehead, A.N. (1917, reprinted 1962).The aims of education and other essays. London: Ernest Benn Ltd.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Falchikov, N. Attitudes and values of lecturing staff: Tradition, innovation and change. High Educ 25, 487–510 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383849
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383849