Individual instructor's perceptions of teaching context : identifying facilitators and barriers to completion of teaching projects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Frameworks seeking to explain teaching competency and development in higher education indicate that context and personal perspectives, as well as knowledge and action are crucial components in the understanding of how and why faculty teach as they do and how development may be encouraged and may be supported. This study sought to contribute to a deeper understanding of individual instructors' perceptions of context of higher education as it related to their teaching projects. This study investigated the daily pursuits and pre-occupations (teaching goals/projects) of an individual instructor, specifically, the instructional demands, departmental demands, the personal and professional pursuits of knowledge and the pursuits of pedagogical knowledge. More specifically, this study investigated perceived facilitators and barriers to the realization of individual teaching and other work projects. Nineteen full-time faculty members in the Departments of Physiotherapy, Occupational therapy, Nursing, Social Work, Educational Psychology and Education at a large research and teaching university in Montreal, Quebec participated in this study. The instructors were asked to complete an adapted version of Little's (1983) Personal Project Analysis (P.P.A.) instrument, which is designed to elicit an instructor's current pre-occupations or projects in his or her current context. The instructors were asked to rate these projects (seven teaching projects and seven other work projects) using a Likert scale (0 to 10) on twenty-one empirically supported dimensions. These dimensions included the following: enjoyment, difficulty, control, initiative, stress, time pressure, outcome, self-identity, others' view, value congruency, challenge, commitment, competence, support, self-worth, fun, others' benefit, self-benefit, supportiveness of culture (departmental level), hindrance of culture (departmental level), and overall current satisfaction. Instructors were asked to assess their perceived conflicts between two of their teaching projects and two of their other work projects in addition to completing a demographic questionnaire. The findings indicate that instructors identified five different types of daily pursuits that formed and defined their teaching context, as they perceived it. These five types of daily pursuits (projects) included: course planning and preparation projects; student investment, support and delegation of tasks to student projects; knowledge building and knowledge sharing projects; committees, faculty support and faculty teaching projects; and finally, teaching strategy projects. The instructors also identified five different types of daily pursuits that formed and defined their other work context. These included: publishing, conference presentation and research projects; grant proposals and funding projects; office organization projects; correspondence, university committees, outside mandates, departmental expectations and management of student and faculty projects; and finally, personal objectives and technical skill building projects. P.P.A. enabled the researcher to identify on an individual instructor level the instructor's perceived facilitators and barriers to the successful completion of teaching and other work projects. Furthermore, P.P.A. as a faculty development instrument or as an alternative to semi-structured interview methods is supported by the findings.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».