University Pedagogy in Greece: Pedagogical Needs of Greek Academics from Ionian University

  • Georgia RotidiEmail author
  • Katerina Kedraka
  • Efrossini-Maria Frementiti
  • Christos Kaltsidis
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


The present paper reports on the results of a small-scale research which took place in 2018. Fifty-eight (58) Greek academics from the Ionian University (56.7% of the total Faculty members) completed the Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI), in which an open-ended question was included, aiming to detect their view on the issue of University Pedagogy and their potential needs for pedagogical training. Their responds showed that the majority of them recognize the need for pedagogical training, while they suggest specific interventions to the direction of the improvement of Faculty’s pedagogical teaching skills. Issues raised from their responds such as the development of Faculty’s communication skills, the psychological support of students, the creation of relationships of trust and respect with them, the creative exploitation of new technologies and the specific teaching and learning needs of the several disciplines are further discussed.


University Pedagogy Faculty training Teaching skills 


  1. 1.
    Zondanos K (2011) Report: best practices in quality assurance of higher education and research. Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, Athens. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kedraka K, Rotidi G (2017) University Pedagogy: a new culture is emerging in Greek higher education. Int J High Educ 6:147–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kokkos A (2008) Educating adult trainers: assessment study. Scientific Association of Adult Education, Athens. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Postareff L, Lindblom-Ylanne S (2011) Emotions and confidence within teaching in higher education. Stud High Educ 36:799–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akerlind GS (2003) Growing and developing as a University teacher-variation in meaning. Stud High Educ 15:327–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cretchley PC, Edwards SL, O’Shea P, Sheard J, Hurst J, Brookes W (2013) Research and/or learning and teaching: a study of Australian Professors’ priorities, beliefs and behaviors. High Educ Res Dev 33:649–669. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brownell SA, Tanner KD (2017) Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of training, time, incentives, and…tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci Educ 11:339–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ezati BA, Opolot-Okurut C, Namubiru Sentamu P (2014) Addressing pedagogical training needs of teaching staff: lessons from Makerere University short professional development programs 2006–2010. Am J Educ Res 2:1190–1198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Commission (2019) Education and training 2020: working group mandates 2018–2020.
  10. 10.
    Jarvis P (2004) Continuing education and training: theory and practice. Metaichmio, Athens. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen JL (2011) Higher education faculty versus high school teacher: does pedagogical preparation make a difference? Bioscene 37:30–36. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robinson TE, Warren C (2013) Teaching in higher education: is there a need for training in pedagogy in graduate degree programs? Res High Educ J.
  13. 13.
    Frementiti EM (2018) Beliefs, intentions and practices of academics with regards to teaching and learning: the case of Ionian University faculty members. Postgraduate thesis (in Greek). Hellenic Open University of Patras.
  14. 14.
    Robson C (2010) Real-world research: a tool for social scientists and professional researchers. Gutenberg, Athens. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI).
  16. 16.
    Nulty DD (2008) The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys, what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ 33:301–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Creswell JW (2011) Research in education: design, conduct and evaluation of quantitative and qualitative research. Ion/Hellin, Athens. (in Greek)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hallander M (2019) On the verge of tears: the ambivalent spaces of emotions and testimonies. Stud Philos Educ 56:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergdahl L, Langmann E (2018) Time for values: responding educationally to the call from the past. Stud Philos Educ 37:367–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malmqvist J, Gunnarsson S, Vigild M (2008) Faculty professional competence development programs: comparing approaches from three universities.
  21. 21.
    Hirsto L, Lampinen M, Syrjäkari M (2013) Learning outcomes of university lecturers from a process-oriented university pedagogical course. TRAMES 17:347–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    García-Valcárcel A, Tejedor FJ (2009) Training demands of the lecturers related to the use of ICT. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 1:178–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rotidi G, Karalis T (2014) Reflection on teaching in higher education: critically reflective processes of Greek academics in hard, soft, pure and applied disciplines. In: What’s the point of transformative learning? Proceedings of the 1st conference of ESREA’s network “Interrogating transformative processes in learning and education: an international dialogue”, ESREA & HAEA, Athens, 27–29 June, pp 356–368Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kedraka K (2016) University Pedagogy: past, present and future. In: Kedraka K (ed) Proceedings of the symposium: “University Pedagogy: education and teaching in higher education, a terra incognita?”, Alexandroupolis, pp 21–39.
  25. 25.
    National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (2015) History.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Democritus University of ThraceAlexandroupolisGreece

Personalised recommendations