COMENTARIO FINAL

methodically pursued. Although often seen as a secondary function to research in defining success as an academic, authors such as Boyer (1990), Appollonia and Abrami (1997), Rahilly and Saroyan (1997), and Sorcinelli (2007) have reflected an increasing attention to the teaching role within higher education over recent decades.

Viewed from the perspective of the individual postsecondary teacher, Centra (1993) reported a survey of more than 35,000 faculty members at American universities and colleges that found being an effective teacher was a goal for 98 % of those surveyed (p. 3). Vajoczki (2008) in a study of Canadian university geography departments’ faculty evaluation processes,

45

found an underlying goal of effective teaching, but also found a gap between that goal and the end purpose of the evaluation process, such as tenure, promotion, and administrative needs.

Teaching in postsecondary settings may be given less importance than in elementary and secondary schools, but the process of teaching in this setting is no less difficult. Marsh and Roche (1997) called teaching in higher education “a complex activity consisting of multiple dimensions,” (p. 1187), with clarity, teachers’ interactions with students, organization, and enthusiasm among those dimensions. Campbell (2009) added her voice from the American community college system, noting the complexity of teaching, and of understanding how to be effective at its practice, in higher education.

Henard (2010), in a review of quality teaching practices in higher education conducted for the OECD, also suggested understanding effective teaching in postsecondary studies is difficult due to the complexity of the learning process for students at this level of education:

Unlike what happens in primary or secondary education, the learning gained in higher education results from a wider array of factors that are external to the education provided by the institution. Learning in higher education is the result of a combination of teaching, practice and behavioural skills, and of other components that are external to the

institution’s capacity. (p. 84)

A definition of effective teaching was crafted at Syracuse University and used by Centra (1993): “effective teaching produces beneficial and purposeful student learning through the use of appropriate procedures” (p. 42). This definition leaves the reader with further questions, however, as to what are “appropriate procedures” and how do we know if students have learned in a beneficial or purposeful way? In addition, this definition removes the teacher, other than as a transmitter of the procedures, from the equation.

Abrami, Appollonia, and Rosenfeld (1997) defined effective teaching from a strictly product-process perspective, saying “it is unclear whether generally static personal

characteristics or traits (e.g. gender, race, age, personality, etc.) form part of the process definition” (p. 325). Layne (2012) validated this definition through a study of student versus teacher definition of effectiveness, showing that students tended to evaluate based on the product or result of the course, including entertainment value, while teachers tended to evaluate based on process factors such as whether the required curriculum was covered.

Other authors, however, have attempted to define competencies for postsecondary teaching by going beyond the product or process. Ralph (2003) claimed effective college

46

teaching is “an art, and a science, and a craft, in which skilled professionals continuously make instructional decisions about both content and pedagogy for the purpose of optimizing student learning. . . . Proficient teaching is more than correctly performing a set of generic instructional skills—although these skills are necessary to its success” (p. 100). Ralph (2004) offered 12 practices of instruction that are positively correlated with high levels of student achievement and motivation, and also with teacher satisfaction, that include a mix of teacher traits (enthusiasm, organization) and practices (active learning processes, relating course content to students). These practices are summarized in Table 2.4 on Page 52.

Arreola (2007), in discussing faculty evaluation methods said, “the vast, underlying problem in the evaluation of teaching has been the fact that the professoriate has not come forward with a universally accepted definition of what constitutes an excellent teacher” (p. 25). While lacking such a definition, he offered a list of traits and knowledge, or competencies, garnered from research and associated with excellent teaching. Arreola’s (2007) list included:  Content expertise. “Content expertise, although necessary is an insufficient quality for

teaching excellence.”

 Affective trait and skills. “[The teacher] enjoys teaching as much or more than they enjoy working in their field; models the best characteristics of an accomplished practitioner in the field they are teaching.”

 Performance skills. The teacher speaks clearly, is organized, uses personal examples, uses humour effectively, and “creates an appropriate psychological environment for learning.”  Cognitive skills. These include instructional design, instructional delivery, and instructional

assessment (p. 25).

Arreola’s teacher competencies are summarized within Table 2.4 on Page 52.

Cabrera, Colbeck, and Terezini (2001) in a study of undergraduate engineering students at seven American universities, found that “faculty efforts in the classroom indeed have

important influences on student learning” (p. 343). Among the teaching competencies they identified as positively affecting student learning were: interaction with students; guiding rather than lecturing; providing detail and specific feedback; providing encouragement; clearly

explaining assignments; clearly stating course requirements; and relating assignments to the content of the class. Campbell (2009) listed dimensions of effective college teaching as including teacher enthusiasm, organization, group interaction, individual rapport, breadth of coverage, and

47

quality of work. Delaney, Johnson, Johnson, and Treslan (2008), in their survey of undergraduate students at a Canadian university, found effective teachers were most commonly described as: respectful, knowledgeable, approachable, engaging, communicative, organized, responsive, professional, and humorous.

Vajoczki (2008) created a conceptual framework of effective teaching based on previous research that was then tested within the Canadian university context. This initial framework suggested that effective teaching is affected by eight parameters; however, in testing this framework against the practices of Canadian universities, Vajoczki (2008) found “the original conceptual framework of effective teaching evaluation was too simplistic” (p. iv), resulting in additions to create a 15-point description of effective teaching. The resulting description is summarized in Table 2.4 on Page 52. Catano and Harvey (2011), in a study conducted at a Canadian university, used student-generated critical incidents to derive nine teaching

competencies, which are included in Table 2.4 below. These competencies were then compared to other studies (Cohen, 1981; Keeley, Smith, & Buskist, 2006; Marsh & Roche, 1997) with strong similarities found.

2.6.2.4 Postsecondary vocational teaching competencies. Grubb (1999a) argued that