Search results

The teaching of teaching is sophisticated work although it is often viewed simplistically. To challenge simplistic approaches to teacher education, teacher educators need to actively articulate the specialist knowledge, skills, and abilities that underpin expertise in teaching and to do so through their practice with their students of teaching. In schools, teachers do not commonly experience a workplace culture whereby the explicit discussion and critique of pedagogical purpose and reasoning occurs. Therefore, it is all the more important that teacher educators bring such thinking to the surface in their teaching about teaching. Teaching is not just about the “doing” of teaching; it is also about the “why” – which leads to the development of informed and meaningful practice to enhance student learning. This chapter considers some of the principles that underpin thinking about teaching as more than transmission and therefore shapes what teacher educators need to know and are able to do.

This chapter describes pre-service teachers' teaching practices of didactic methods based on cognitive apprenticeship. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate potential of Second Life® as a space for teaching practices of pre-service teachers. The participants were 160 college students who were completing a practicum at Korea National University of Education. These students enrolled in four sections of teaching methods and educational technology, which was one of the requirements for their teaching certificate. The students were placed in groups of three to five students according to their majors. In Second Life, they practiced their teaching and participated in the evaluation of other groups' teaching. They discussed Second Life's potential, such as a space for expanding their teaching experiences and explored possibilities for using it as an environment for teaching practices. The authors believe that readers will find that Second Life can offer a valuable environment to promote pre-teachers' understanding of teaching techniques.

Studies have highlighted the influence of how students perceive their learning environment in shaping their attitudes to learning, their approach to learning and ultimately with the quality of their learning outcomes. Although far less extensively researched, it appears that how academics perceive their teaching environment influences both what and how they teach. The nature and effect of these perceptions has important implications for the recruitment and retention of key personnel and for the quality of teaching, learning and campus work life in general. This paper reports the results of a study that investigates the perceptions of a group of Australian and New Zealand academics of their work environment. The aim of the study is to identify those factors perceived as negatively affecting teaching, the key themes underlying these factors and the relationships between perceptions and choice of teaching approach. The results and their implications for the quality of university teaching are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of a change in teaching structure in improving the performance of students in an introductory management accounting subject at an Australian institution. The change in structure involved a shift in the balance between lecture and tutorial face‐to‐face contact hours with increased emphasis being placed on tutorials in an attempt to enhance the benefits of cooperative learning.

The paper evaluates the success of the new approach by comparing the performance of students across the two teaching structures. Specifically, the paper compares the performance of students on exam questions covering five key management accounting topics.

The results revealed that the new teaching structure (a two‐hour workshop‐based tutorial and a one‐hour lecture each week) improved student examination results significantly in comparison to the previous “traditional” approach.

This paper demonstrates the benefits of teaching and learning conducted in a small class size setting with the use of cooperative learning. Such an approach could be adopted more widely in the teaching and learning of accounting to enhance the generic and analytic skills of students.

This paper provides empirical evidence to support largely normative claims that cooperative learning when combined with greater focus on small class teaching can improve student performance.

The evaluation and continuous improvement of the quality of teaching and learning in higher education is an issue of sustained concern. While most universities are implementing systems of quality assurance, there is substantial variation in the principles underlying these systems. La Trobe University has developed and implemented a university‐wide system of quality assurance that ensures that each subject is systematically reviewed and enhanced by those teaching in the subject. While it incorporates compulsory student evaluation of teaching of each subject the result of this student evaluation is not the focus of the quality assurance system. The focus is on ensuring that those teaching the subject, reflect on and make recommendations for further improvement of the subject. Outlines the quality assurance system, the principles on which it is based and describes and analyses the processes engaged in during its development.

Outlines a series of initiatives at both national and institutional levels which suggest that British higher education is becoming more serious about improving the quality of university teaching. National initiatives include the Teaching Quality Assessment exercise, the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme and the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning. The establishment of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education is also briefly highlighted. At the institutional level initiatives include the creation of more effective units or centres to promote learning and teaching, many of which intend to offer teacher development programmes accredited by the new Institute for Learning and Teaching. Such units also provide a valuable range of workshops, consultancy and project support in order to help universities improve their understanding of the practice and the theory of teaching in higher education. Many such units also promote research, especially action research, into university teaching and learning.

Sketches a number of issues implicated in the assessment of teaching quality in higher education. Argues that checklist approaches to measuring teaching quality have some limited value – and a more professional, developmental approach is preferred. However, the focus on teaching quality should not disguise the fact that the emphasis needs to be on enhancing the quality of student learning, and this is not simply a function of the quality of the teaching which they encounter. Discusses implications both for academic departments and for universities, the claim being that systemic action is necessary.

The purpose of this paper is to examine evaluations of teaching from viewpoints of lecturers and students to reveal perceived differences in teaching performance.

A survey is administered to lecturers and students in a large‐scale university in Taiwan. Valid samples include ten lecturers and 250 students. Upon obtaining consensuses from lecturers, 25 students in each course are randomly selected to fill out questionnaires. Lecturers are requested to fill out questionnaires designed for instructors only. Factor, cluster, and multivariate analyses of variance are applied in analyzing the survey data. Five dimensions of evaluations of teaching are extracted from students' viewpoints, including content of materials, learning condition, interaction, attitudes, and responsiveness. These five factors are used in the clustering procedure to segment courses into superior‐ and inferior‐quality.

Results indicate surveyed students in the clusters of superior‐ and inferior‐quality courses have statistical differences in seriousness of evaluations of teaching performance and how they believe the suggestions will be taken into consideration in modifications of teaching styles. However, lecturers of superior‐ and inferior‐quality courses are not statistically different in their viewpoints in how they value evaluations of teaching performance.

Survey data in this paper are obtained from a single university. Students are able to distinguish courses of different quality in various dimensions, but lecturers seem to believe that they have done well in teaching and will not know differences in teaching performance perceived by students as of superior‐or inferior‐quality.

For efficient utilization of student evaluations of teaching in educational institutions, gaps in perceived differences in teaching performance from lecturers and students need to be identified and filled.

End‐of‐term student evaluations of teaching are used in educational institutions for assessing how well instructors do in helping students to learn theoretical and practical aspects of knowledge. Findings in this paper can be used to form a baseline for educational institutions to improve applicability of student evaluations of teaching.

Any topic can be sensitive, and every subject area will have sensitive issues and topics that academics in higher education and further education settings will be expected to negotiate. Your ability to negotiate sensitive topics is important because the ways in which you engage and teach about sensitive topics will affect your ability to provide a positive learning experience and teaching alliance with students. In practice, you will face enormous pressure to ‘deliver’ on teaching, which will only be mirrored by similar freedoms in deciding on how and what needs to be done to get students to where they need to be. Negotiating, identifying, preparing for and delivering teaching on sensitive subjects and topics can be difficult in individual academics. This chapter, seeks to prepare you for developing a deeper understanding of some of the philosophical, theoretical, and practical-based concerns and issues related to teaching sensitive topics and subjects. This chapter begins with providing a rationale for what follows, and it explores some of the key themes, positionality, identity, transformational learning and lived experience, that are explored in greater depth in the collection. This chapter also contains a detailed breakdown of the structure and the content of this edited collection, and it concludes with some reflective comments about the implications of the collection for you as an individual and your career.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the state of production and operations management (P/OM) teaching in universities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in terms of course characteristics, objectives, content, adopted textbooks, didactic materials, teaching faculty, teaching methods, assessment tools, and course requisites.

Due to the exploratory nature of this study and the small population surveyed, the author employed descriptive statistical analysis such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations.

The results show that in the majority of UAE universities offering P/OM as a college‐requirement course, it is being taught by highly qualified and well‐trained teaching faculty. The main objectives of P/OM courses are: teaching students how to analyse and understand situations from an operations perspective; understanding the links between strategy, production, capacity and core competencies; and preparing students to be able to understand how supply chains work, including the ability to forecast production levels. More emphasis is placed upon operational and tactical issues rather than on strategic issues. The most common assessment methods used in P/OM courses were found to be theoretical examinations with questions, student projects, practical examinations, and class participation. The most frequently covered topics in P/OM courses in UAE universities include competitiveness, strategy, productivity, strategic capacity planning for products and services, supply chain management, forecasting, introduction to operations management, product and service design, and management of quality. Lecturing is the main teaching method used in P/OM courses. The main didactic materials used were found to be textbooks, manuals of problems/solution and case studies, class notes taken by students, and externally produced software.

This study has a number of limitations. For example, it is based mainly on a questionnaire as a tool of data collection. Questionnaires have a number of drawbacks which might affect the results of the study. In addition, the study is based only on the viewpoint of teaching faculty rather than students. Nevertheless, the implications of the study for course developers, instructors, and managers are discussed.

The paper is the first to assess P/OM teaching in UAE universities.