Faculty development units at Mexican higher education institutions: A descriptive study of characteristics, common practices and challenges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The rapid expansion in higher education in the 1960s and early 1970s brought a reexamination of university teaching and learning, placing significant attention on the role of faculty development. The steady growth of this field has been reflected in the establishment of centers, offices, and divisions at many colleges and universities that are in charge of the design, implementation, and evaluation of faculty development programs. Reflecting different traditions within institutions and between countries, these special units exist under a variety of names (e.g., teaching and learning centers, educational development units, institutes for academic excellence). Starting in the 1960s, several nationwide empirical studies have been conducted to characterize the practices of these units in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Mexico. In order to provide up-to-date information about the work of faculty development units (FDUs) to different Mexican stakeholders (e.g., faculty developers, institution administrators, and policymakers), this study targeted the leaders of FDUs at 220 higher education institutions affiliated with the Mexican National Association of Engineering Schools (ANFEI). A pragmatist worldview guided the design of the two-phase study. In phase I, FDU leaders’ contact information was collected through an analysis of institutions’ websites and a survey of institutions’ ANFEI representatives. Information about the FDUs was gathered in phase II through a Web questionnaire that explored FDU leaders’ profiles; FDUs’ goals, services, evaluation practices, influences and challenges; and potential new directions for the field of faculty development in Mexico. The instrument was developed based on a questionnaire identified in the literature that was translated into Spanish and adapted to the Mexican context with the help of three experienced Mexican faculty developers. The survey yielded 47 suitable responses from a variety of institution types and geographic regions across Mexico. Participants’ responses reveal that faculty development practices in Mexico are highly influenced by federal policies aimed at improving the academic profile of Mexican faculty. Salient responses also indicate that Mexican FDUs face several challenges such as providing adequate discipline-based and teaching development opportunities for faculty; providing support to faculty on the diverse roles they have to meet; guaranteeing that the faculty development programs are relevant and at the forefront of educational innovation; contributing to the overall academic quality of higher education institutions; and securing sufficient funding and resources. Results from this study suggest that faculty development as a field and as a profession in Mexico is still emerging. Mexican faculty development leaders could benefit from the lessons learned by a number of international faculty development organizations that have arisen in the last decades and from the expertise they share through specialized venues such as journals and conferences. As engineering education is also emerging as a recognized scholarly field in Mexico, there is a potential for establishing strategic partnerships between these two groups of professionals to catalyze the development and diffusion of educational innovations in Mexican engineering schools.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».