What affects the teaching style of German professors? Evidence from two nationwide surveys;Was beeinflusst den Lehrstil von deutschen Professorinnen und Professoren? Ergebnisse zweier bundesweiter Befragungen

Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 713-736

  Wilkesmann, Uwe ^a   Lauer, Sabine ^a  

^a TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Governance; Nationwide survey; Selective incentives; Teaching approaches

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945975394     PISSN: 1434663X     EISSN: 18625215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11618-015-0628-4     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2), 251–270.
2. Arrow, K. J. (1985). The economics of agency. In J. W. Pratt, R. Zeckhauser, & K. J. Arrow (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business (pp. 37–51). Boston: Harvard Business Press.
3. Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Millikan, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school. London: Routledge.
4. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckinghamshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.
5. Biester, C. (2013). Leistungsorientierte Vergütung in der Wissenschaft. Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse der neuen Professorenbesoldung (Performance-related budgeting in science. A theorical and empirical analysis of the new salary for professors). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
6. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195.
7. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213.
8. Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2009). Zum Zusammenhang zwischen Lehr-Orientierung und Lehr-Gestaltung von Hochschuldozierenden und subjektivem Kompetenzzuwachs bei Studierenden (The relationship between teaching-orientation and teaching design of university lecturers and a subjective increase in competence among students). In M. A. Meyer, M. Prenzel, & S. Hellekamps (Eds.), Perspektiven der Didaktik (Didactic perspectives) (pp. 277–291). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
9. Braun, E., & Leidner, B. (2009). Academic course evaluation. Theoretical and empirical distinctions between self-rated gain in competences and satisfaction with teaching behavior. European Psychologist, 14(4), 297–306.
10. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74.
11. Federal Statistical Office (2012). Nichtmonetäre Hochschulstatistische Kennzahlen 1980–2012 (Non-monetary statistical key figures in higher education 1980–2012). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/BildungForschungKultur/Hochschulen/KennzahlenNichtmonetaer2110431127004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed: 30 March 2014.
12. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
13. Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Academics appreciate awards: a new aspect of incentives in research (No. 2531). CESifo working paper.
14. Frost, J., Osterloh, M., & Weibel, A. (2010). Governing knowledge work: Transactional and transformational solutions. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2), 126–136.
15. Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
16. González, C. (2011). Extending research on ‘conceptions of teaching’: Commonalities and differences in recent investigations. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 65–80.
17. Jaeger, M., Leszczensky, M., Orr, D., & Schwarzenberger, A. (2005). Formelgebundene Mittelvergabe und Zielvereinbarungen als Instrumente der Budgetierung an deutschen Universitäten: Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Befragung (Formula-based funding budgets and target agreements as instruments of budgeting at German universities. Results from a nationwide survey). (HIS-Kurzinformation A13/2005). Hannover: HIS.
18. Johannes, C., & Seidel, T. (2012). Professionalisierung von Hochschullehrenden. Lehrbezogene Vorstellungen, Wissensanwendung und Identitätsentwicklung in einem videobasierten Qualifikationsprogramm (Professionalization of university teachers—Teaching approaches, professional vision, and teacher identity in video-based training). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 233–251.
19. Kember, D., & K. Kwan (2002). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 219–240). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
20. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 232–255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
21. Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review Sociology, 24(8), 183–214.
22. Krempkow, R., Landrock, U., & Schulz, P. (2012). Steuerung durch LOM? Eine Analyse zur leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe an Medizin-Fakultäten in Deutschland (Steering through performance orientated funding allocation (LOM)? An analysis of performance-related budgeting at German medical faculties). In U. Wilkesmann & C. J. Schmid (Eds.), Hochschule als Organisation (University as Organization) (pp. 245–260). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
23. Lacey, C., & Saleh, A. (1998). Teaching nine to five: A study of the teaching styles of male and female professors. A paper presented at the Women in Educational Leadership Annual Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, October 11–12.
24. Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move towards transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.
25. Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Troulloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529–545.
26. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298.
27. Lübeck, D. (2010). Wird fachspezifisch unterschiedlich gelehrt? (Are there subject-specific differences in teaching?). Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 5(2), 7–24.
28. McKenna, A. F., & Yalvac, B. (2007). Characterizing engineering faculty’s teaching approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 405–418.
29. Metz-Göckel, S., Kamphans, M., & Scholkmann, A. (2012). Hochschuldidaktische Forschung zur Lehrqualität und Lernwirksamkeit. Ein Rückblick, Überblick und Ausblick (Didactic research on teaching quality and teaching efficiency in higher education. Retrospective, insights and outlook). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 213–232.
30. Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203–225.
31. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: Free Press.
32. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary context: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.
33. Nevgi, A., Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2004). The effect of discipline on motivational and self-efficacy beliefs and on approaches to teaching of Finnish and English university teachers. A paper presented at the EARLI SIG Higher Education Conference, June 18–21.
34. Nowakowski, A., Vervecken, D., Braun, E., & Hannover, B. (2012). Was Hochschuldozierende aus Lehrevaluations-Rückmeldungen lernen können. Der differenzielle Einfluss prozess- versus ergebnisorientierten Feedbacks auf Lehrorientierungen (What university lecturers can learn from evaluation feedback—The differential impact of process- versus outcome-oriented feedback on teaching orientations). Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(2), 253–271.
35. Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E.C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers’ interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 174–183.
36. Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Lévesqui, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186–196.
37. Postareff, L. (2007). Teaching in higher education. From content-focused to learning-focused approaches to teaching (Research Report 214).University of Helsinki: Department of Education.
38. Prosser, M., & K. Trigwell (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. The experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
39. Prosser, M., & K. Trigwell (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 405–419.
40. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers’ experience of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 140–155.
41. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774.
42. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
43. Sanchez, J. (2012). Motivational triggers of faculty members: The process of teaching practice transformation. University of New Mexico. http://hdl.handle.net/1928/17500. Accessed: 14 Jan. 2014.
44. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353.
45. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
46. Smeenk, S., Teelken, C., Eisinga, R., & Doorewaard, H. (2009). Managerialism, organizational commitment, and quality of job performances among European university employees. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 589–607.
47. Stes, A., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2008). Student-focused approaches to teaching in relation to context and teaching characteristics. Higher Education, 55(3), 255–267.
48. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32(1), 5–84.
49. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424.
50. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 73–83.
51. Vogel, M. P. (2009). Exploring the conditions for academic teachers’ informal collegial learning about teaching. A social network approach. Educate, 9(2), 18–36.
52. Watzlawick, P. (1976). How real is real? Confusion, disinformation, communication. New York: Random House.
53. Wilkesmann, U. (2013). Effects of transactional and transformational governance on academic teaching—Empirical evidence from two types of higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 19(4), 281–300.
54. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2010). Ist der Lehrpreis ein Leistungsanreiz für die Lehre? (What can teaching awards really achieve in regards to teaching performance?). In P. Tremp (Ed.), ‚Ausgezeichnete Lehre!’ Lehrpreise an Hochschulen (Teaching Awards at Universities) (pp. 39–55). Münster: Waxmann.
55. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2011). Lehren lohnt sich (nicht)?—Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Erhebung zu den Auswirkungen leistungsorientierter Steuerung auf die universitäre Lehrtätigkeit (Does teaching pay off (or not)?—Findings from a Germany-wide survey examining the impact of performance-related steering on university teaching activities). Soziale Welt, 62(3), 251–278.
56. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2012). The impacts of new governance on teaching at German universities. Findings from a national survey. Higher Education, 63(1), 33–52.
57. Wilkesmann, U., & Schmid, C. J. (2014). Intrinsic and internalized modes of teaching motivation. Evidence-based HRM, 2(1), 6–27.
58. Wilkesmann, M., & Wilkesmann, U. (2011). A framework for knowledge transfer as interaction between experts and novices supported by technology. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 41(2), 96–112.