{"id":2260,"date":"2015-03-04T14:33:58","date_gmt":"2015-03-04T22:33:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/?post_type=chapter&p=2260"},"modified":"2015-04-01T11:52:02","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T18:52:02","slug":"12-3-faculty-development-and-training","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/chapter\/12-3-faculty-development-and-training\/","title":{"raw":"12.2 The development and training of teachers and instructors in a digital age","rendered":"12.2 The development and training of teachers and instructors in a digital age"},"content":{"raw":"

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2273\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"745\"]\"Figure<\/a> Figure 12.2 A faculty development workshop[\/caption]\r\n\r\n\"Print\"<\/a>\r\n

12.2.1\u00a0The need<\/h2>\r\nBy mid-August in most countries in the northern hemisphere, teachers' pro-d and faculty development workshops and conferences have ended, and everyone has\u00a0headed off for a well earned vacation. Many thousands will have learned how to use a learning management or lecture capture system for the first time, and hundreds of others will have been introduced to new technologies such as e-portfolios, mobile learning, and open educational resources. A smaller but significant number\u00a0will have been introduced to new methods of teaching built around the potential of new technologies. All good stuff \u2013 and all totally inadequate for the needs facing teachers and instructors in a digital age.\r\n

12.2.2 A broken professional development model<\/h2>\r\nIn universities, faculty are trained, through the doctoral route, to do research, but there is no requirement to be trained in teaching methods. At best faculty development is voluntary for faculty once appointed, and although post-doctoral students may be offered short courses or in some instances even a certificate in preparation for classroom teaching, this is usually\u00a0voluntary and minimal. Indeed, post-graduate students interested in experimenting with learning technologies or taking professional courses or programs in teaching\u00a0are often deliberately discouraged by their supervisors from doing so, as it would detract from their research. Increased use of adjunct\/contract faculty\u00a0exacerbates the problem (see Section 12.4). Being on contract, they require payment for any training, but institutions are often reluctant to train contract workers who may then leave at the end of the contract and take their training and skills to a competitor.\r\n\r\nThe situation is somewhat different in two year colleges. Many jurisdictions (but by no means all) have a regional, state or provincial Instructor Diploma Program that some colleges require instructors to take on appointment or shortly afterwards. However, many of these programs have not been adapted to take account of online learning, and probably none are yet up to date on blended learning. I was an external reviewer for one such program a while\u00a0ago, and there was almost no mention of online or blended learning. Most of the technologies discussed in this program were\u00a0at least 20 years old.\r\n\r\nThe lack of comprehensive and systematic training at a pre-service level places a disproportionate burden on ongoing professional development, which is at best ad hoc and variable in both quantity and quality. Above all, it is an entirely voluntary system \u2013 in other words, teachers or instructors\u00a0can choose not to take any in-service workshops or courses on teaching, if they decide \u2013 as most do \u2013 that their professional development time will be better spent focusing on research rather than teaching. Christensen Hughes and Mighty (2010) argue that less than 10 per cent of all university instructors take professional development activities focused on improving their teaching, and the faculty that do opt in are often those in least need of training as they are often already excellent teachers.\r\n\r\nLastly, most faculty and instructors do not base their teaching practice on empirically-based evidence or research on the effectiveness of different approaches. Christensen Hughes\u00a0and\u00a0Mighty (2010) have edited a collection of studies on research on teaching and learning in higher education. In the opening chapter the editors state:\r\n
\u2018\u2026researchers have discovered much about teaching and learning in higher education, but that dissemination and uptake of this information have been limited. As such, the impact of educational research on faculty-teaching practice and student-learning experience has been negligible.\u2019<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nIn the same book, Christopher Knapper (also of Queens University) states (p. 229-230):\r\n
\u2018There is increasing empirical evidence from a variety of international settings that prevailing teaching practices in higher education do not encourage the sort of learning that contemporary society demands\u2026.Teaching remains largely didactic, assessment of student work is often trivial, and curricula are more likely to emphasize content coverage than acquisition of lifelong and life-wide skills\u2026.<\/em>\r\n\r\n[However] there is an impressive body of evidence on how teaching methods and curriculum design affect deep, autonomous and reflective learning. Yet most faculty are largely ignorant of this scholarship, and instructional practices are dominated by tradition rather than research evidence.\u2019<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nThis book has shown that we do not\u00a0have to invent or discover what\u2019s needed to teach well in a digital age. There is a well-established literature and generally agreed best practices<\/a>, yet, as Christensen Hughes and Mighty have pointed out, many if not a majority of teachers and\u00a0instructors are unaware or continue to ignore these standards.\r\n

12.2.3 Why the system needs to change<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nWhen university education was limited to an elite few students, where faculty had a close, one-on-one relationship with students, it was possible to manage quite effectively without formal training in teaching. That is not the case today. Faculty are challenged by large classes, and heterogeneous students who learn in a variety of ways, with different learning skills and abilities. The emphasis is changing from knowledge as content to knowledge as process. Teaching methods need to be chosen that will develop the skills and competencies needed in a knowledge-based society, and on top of all this, constantly changing technology requires instructors to have analytical frameworks to help choose and use technologies appropriately for teaching.\r\n\r\nIn particular, the profound effect of the Internet on scholarship, research, work and leisure requires major reconsideration of our teaching methods, if we are to develop the skills and knowledge our students will need in a knowledge-based society. This requires comprehensive and systematic training of our instructors, not a system that depends heavily on opting-in, and that fails to reward adequately excellence in teaching as measured by the standards required in today\u2019s context.\r\n\r\nMoving to blended, hybrid and online learning requires a much higher standard of training for faculty and instructors. It is not just a question of learning how to use a learning management system or an iPad. The use of technology needs to be combined with an understanding of how students learn, how skills are developed, how knowledge is represented through different media and then processed, and how learners use different senses for learning. It means examining different approaches to learning, such as the construction of knowledge compared with a transmission model of teaching, and how technology best works with either approach. Above all, it means linking the use of technology to the specific requirements of a particular knowledge domain or subject area.\r\n\r\nThe expansion into blended and online learning has been facilitated mainly by the establishment of separate learning technology support units to support faculty and instructors who do not have the experience or skills to teach online. Although this is essential, it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to expand such units as blended and online learning continues to grow (Bates and Sangr\u00e0, 2011). It is much more cost-effective to provide adequate initial pre-service training so that learning technology units can concentrate on training, professional development and R&D into new methods of teaching and learning as new technologies develop.\r\n

12.2.4 What needs to be done<\/h2>\r\nIdentifying the problem is much easier than fixing it. In particular, the culture especially of universities protects the existing system. Academic freedom is often used as an argument for the status quo, and unions in the college system insist on payment for instructors for any time spent on training over and above their normal teaching load. As Bates and Sangr\u00e0 (2011) have pointed out, this is a systemic problem. It is difficult for a university, for example,\u00a0to change for fear that their best young researchers will\u00a0move to another institution where training in teaching is not demanded.\r\n\r\nThere are many different ways to address this challenge. I set out one possible strategy below.\r\n

12.2.4.1 Recognize that there\u2019s a problem<\/h3>\r\nFirst, it has to be recognized and accepted by institutional leaders, teachers, instructors and faculty, the relevant unions, quality assurance boards and state funding agencies\u00a0that there is a major problem here. Developing skilled teachers\u00a0(and that's what we need in schools, colleges and universities)\u00a0is as much an economic development as an educational issue. If we want people with the knowledge and skills needed in a digital age, then teachers must get the knowledge themselves about how to develop such skills, and in particular recognize that learning technologies and online learning are critical components in the development of such skills.\r\n

12.2.4.2 Start in graduate school<\/h3>\r\nIt is much more economical and effective to prepare instructors properly at the start of their careers than to try to get large chunks of their time for training while in their mid or late careers. Although technology will change over time, the basic essentials of teaching and learning are relatively stable. Thus the problem needs to be tackled at the pre-service level. For those wishing to work as faculty in universities, we need to examine the post-graduate degree and in particular the Ph.D., to ensure that there is adequate time for courses on and practice in post-secondary teaching, or develop a parallel route for developing teaching and research skills.\r\n

12.2.4.3 Adopt a system-wide approach<\/h3>\r\nIdeally the state or provincial Council of Universities or Colleges, or school boards,\u00a0should get together and develop a comprehensive system of training for all teachers\u00a0and ensure that such programs are\u00a0continually updated. Similarly, a common plan and set of standards needs to be established across a jurisdiction for hiring and promotion linked to proper training in teaching and learning, through the establishment of appropriate working groups that would\u00a0include professionals from learning technology units and professional\u00a0development offices.\r\n

12.2.4.4 Set standards<\/h3>\r\nThe system-wide\u00a0working groups should agree on a \u2018core\u2019 curriculum, minimum standards, and measures of performance for pre-service training in teaching for each sector. These standards should include knowledge and skills needed by learners in a digital age. No person should be hired to new positions that have a major teaching component without recognized training in teaching, once the training system is in place.\r\n\r\nFor in-service professional development, one strategy would be to require\u00a0an individual professional development plan for every teacher or instructor\u00a0annually negotiated between the teacher\u00a0and their head of department. This plan would include regular up-dating in new teaching methods and technologies,\u00a0similar to the compulsory professional development programs for medical practitioners. Different individual professional development plans will be needed for different subject areas.\r\n

12.2.4.5 Government as watch dog and enforcer<\/h3>\r\nGovernments should exert pressure on school boards, colleges and universities\u00a0to ensure that an adequate pre-service and in-service training system is in place, as a condition of future funding.\u00a0Governments should refuse to fund any public institution that does not follow the standards for training in teaching set and endorsed by the\u00a0relevant system-wide authorities.\r\n

12.2.4.6 Integrate internally<\/h3>\r\nBlended and fully online teaching and learning technologies should be seen as integral components of professional development, not as separate activities. Therefore\u00a0faculty development offices should be integrated with learning technology support units into Centres for Teaching and Learning (either centrally or divisionally, depending on the size of the institution), where this has not already occurred.\r\n\r\n\"Print\"<\/a>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2274\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"454\"]\"Figure<\/a> Figure 12.2.4 Teachers brainstorming about using technology for teaching[\/caption]\r\n\r\n\"Print\"<\/a>\r\n

12.2.5 Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nWe would not dream of allowing doctors or pilots do their work without formal training related to their main work activities, yet this is exactly the situation regarding teaching in post-secondary education. We have to move from a system of voluntary\u00a0amateurism to a professional, comprehensive system of training for teaching in post-secondary education, and a modern, up-to-date curriculum for pre-service and in-service training of school teachers. This book attempts to provide at least a basic curriculum for this kind of training.\r\n\r\nI have suggested some solutions to the systemic problem. Others\u00a0support the professional communities of practice route, which is more culturally acceptable to university faculty, but does not meet the test of being comprehensive and systematic.\r\n\r\nOnline learning and new learning technologies\u00a0are not the cause of the problem nor the solution, but they do\u00a0provide a necessary catalyst for change. Our students deserve no less than properly trained teachers. The current situation, at least in post-secondary education, is increasingly unacceptable, a truth no-one dares to speak. It\u2019s about time we dealt with it.\r\n
\r\n

Activity 12.2\u00a0Identifying your professional training\u00a0needs<\/h3>\r\n1. Do you believe the professional development system is 'broken'? Is this as true for school teacher education as it is for post-secondary education? Or does the training system in your organisation work reasonably well for teaching\u00a0in a digital age?\r\n\r\n2. Would it be better not to train faculty in universities to teach, but just put them in working groups with instructional designers and media producers?\r\n\r\n3. Having read this book (or parts of it) can you now define your own professional training needs? Can you get support for this where you work?\r\n\r\n4. In universities, faculty themselves control appointment, tenure and promotion committees. What could be done to make teaching count for more in appointments, tenure and promotion without weakening the academic status or standing of a university?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nBates, A. and Sangr\u00e0, A. (2011) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning<\/a> San Francisco: Jossey-Bass\/John Wiley & Co.\r\n\r\nChristensen Hughes, J. and Mighty, J. (eds.) (2010) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education<\/a> Montreal QC and Kingston ON: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 350 pp\r\n\r\nKnapper, C. (2010) 'Changing Teaching Practice: Barriers and Strategies' in ChristensenHughes, J. and Mighty, J. eds.\u00a0<\/span>Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education<\/em>\u00a0Toronto ON: McGill-Queen's University Press<\/span>","rendered":"

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 12.2 A faculty development workshop<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\n

12.2.1\u00a0The need<\/h2>\n

By mid-August in most countries in the northern hemisphere, teachers’ pro-d and faculty development workshops and conferences have ended, and everyone has\u00a0headed off for a well earned vacation. Many thousands will have learned how to use a learning management or lecture capture system for the first time, and hundreds of others will have been introduced to new technologies such as e-portfolios, mobile learning, and open educational resources. A smaller but significant number\u00a0will have been introduced to new methods of teaching built around the potential of new technologies. All good stuff \u2013 and all totally inadequate for the needs facing teachers and instructors in a digital age.<\/p>\n

12.2.2 A broken professional development model<\/h2>\n

In universities, faculty are trained, through the doctoral route, to do research, but there is no requirement to be trained in teaching methods. At best faculty development is voluntary for faculty once appointed, and although post-doctoral students may be offered short courses or in some instances even a certificate in preparation for classroom teaching, this is usually\u00a0voluntary and minimal. Indeed, post-graduate students interested in experimenting with learning technologies or taking professional courses or programs in teaching\u00a0are often deliberately discouraged by their supervisors from doing so, as it would detract from their research. Increased use of adjunct\/contract faculty\u00a0exacerbates the problem (see Section 12.4). Being on contract, they require payment for any training, but institutions are often reluctant to train contract workers who may then leave at the end of the contract and take their training and skills to a competitor.<\/p>\n

The situation is somewhat different in two year colleges. Many jurisdictions (but by no means all) have a regional, state or provincial Instructor Diploma Program that some colleges require instructors to take on appointment or shortly afterwards. However, many of these programs have not been adapted to take account of online learning, and probably none are yet up to date on blended learning. I was an external reviewer for one such program a while\u00a0ago, and there was almost no mention of online or blended learning. Most of the technologies discussed in this program were\u00a0at least 20 years old.<\/p>\n

The lack of comprehensive and systematic training at a pre-service level places a disproportionate burden on ongoing professional development, which is at best ad hoc and variable in both quantity and quality. Above all, it is an entirely voluntary system \u2013 in other words, teachers or instructors\u00a0can choose not to take any in-service workshops or courses on teaching, if they decide \u2013 as most do \u2013 that their professional development time will be better spent focusing on research rather than teaching. Christensen Hughes and Mighty (2010) argue that less than 10 per cent of all university instructors take professional development activities focused on improving their teaching, and the faculty that do opt in are often those in least need of training as they are often already excellent teachers.<\/p>\n

Lastly, most faculty and instructors do not base their teaching practice on empirically-based evidence or research on the effectiveness of different approaches. Christensen Hughes\u00a0and\u00a0Mighty (2010) have edited a collection of studies on research on teaching and learning in higher education. In the opening chapter the editors state:<\/p>\n

\u2018\u2026researchers have discovered much about teaching and learning in higher education, but that dissemination and uptake of this information have been limited. As such, the impact of educational research on faculty-teaching practice and student-learning experience has been negligible.\u2019<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the same book, Christopher Knapper (also of Queens University) states (p. 229-230):<\/p>\n

\u2018There is increasing empirical evidence from a variety of international settings that prevailing teaching practices in higher education do not encourage the sort of learning that contemporary society demands\u2026.Teaching remains largely didactic, assessment of student work is often trivial, and curricula are more likely to emphasize content coverage than acquisition of lifelong and life-wide skills\u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n

[However] there is an impressive body of evidence on how teaching methods and curriculum design affect deep, autonomous and reflective learning. Yet most faculty are largely ignorant of this scholarship, and instructional practices are dominated by tradition rather than research evidence.\u2019<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This book has shown that we do not\u00a0have to invent or discover what\u2019s needed to teach well in a digital age. There is a well-established literature and generally agreed best practices<\/a>, yet, as Christensen Hughes and Mighty have pointed out, many if not a majority of teachers and\u00a0instructors are unaware or continue to ignore these standards.<\/p>\n

12.2.3 Why the system needs to change<\/strong><\/h2>\n

When university education was limited to an elite few students, where faculty had a close, one-on-one relationship with students, it was possible to manage quite effectively without formal training in teaching. That is not the case today. Faculty are challenged by large classes, and heterogeneous students who learn in a variety of ways, with different learning skills and abilities. The emphasis is changing from knowledge as content to knowledge as process. Teaching methods need to be chosen that will develop the skills and competencies needed in a knowledge-based society, and on top of all this, constantly changing technology requires instructors to have analytical frameworks to help choose and use technologies appropriately for teaching.<\/p>\n

In particular, the profound effect of the Internet on scholarship, research, work and leisure requires major reconsideration of our teaching methods, if we are to develop the skills and knowledge our students will need in a knowledge-based society. This requires comprehensive and systematic training of our instructors, not a system that depends heavily on opting-in, and that fails to reward adequately excellence in teaching as measured by the standards required in today\u2019s context.<\/p>\n

Moving to blended, hybrid and online learning requires a much higher standard of training for faculty and instructors. It is not just a question of learning how to use a learning management system or an iPad. The use of technology needs to be combined with an understanding of how students learn, how skills are developed, how knowledge is represented through different media and then processed, and how learners use different senses for learning. It means examining different approaches to learning, such as the construction of knowledge compared with a transmission model of teaching, and how technology best works with either approach. Above all, it means linking the use of technology to the specific requirements of a particular knowledge domain or subject area.<\/p>\n

The expansion into blended and online learning has been facilitated mainly by the establishment of separate learning technology support units to support faculty and instructors who do not have the experience or skills to teach online. Although this is essential, it will be prohibitively expensive to continue to expand such units as blended and online learning continues to grow (Bates and Sangr\u00e0, 2011). It is much more cost-effective to provide adequate initial pre-service training so that learning technology units can concentrate on training, professional development and R&D into new methods of teaching and learning as new technologies develop.<\/p>\n

12.2.4 What needs to be done<\/h2>\n

Identifying the problem is much easier than fixing it. In particular, the culture especially of universities protects the existing system. Academic freedom is often used as an argument for the status quo, and unions in the college system insist on payment for instructors for any time spent on training over and above their normal teaching load. As Bates and Sangr\u00e0 (2011) have pointed out, this is a systemic problem. It is difficult for a university, for example,\u00a0to change for fear that their best young researchers will\u00a0move to another institution where training in teaching is not demanded.<\/p>\n

There are many different ways to address this challenge. I set out one possible strategy below.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.1 Recognize that there\u2019s a problem<\/h3>\n

First, it has to be recognized and accepted by institutional leaders, teachers, instructors and faculty, the relevant unions, quality assurance boards and state funding agencies\u00a0that there is a major problem here. Developing skilled teachers\u00a0(and that’s what we need in schools, colleges and universities)\u00a0is as much an economic development as an educational issue. If we want people with the knowledge and skills needed in a digital age, then teachers must get the knowledge themselves about how to develop such skills, and in particular recognize that learning technologies and online learning are critical components in the development of such skills.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.2 Start in graduate school<\/h3>\n

It is much more economical and effective to prepare instructors properly at the start of their careers than to try to get large chunks of their time for training while in their mid or late careers. Although technology will change over time, the basic essentials of teaching and learning are relatively stable. Thus the problem needs to be tackled at the pre-service level. For those wishing to work as faculty in universities, we need to examine the post-graduate degree and in particular the Ph.D., to ensure that there is adequate time for courses on and practice in post-secondary teaching, or develop a parallel route for developing teaching and research skills.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.3 Adopt a system-wide approach<\/h3>\n

Ideally the state or provincial Council of Universities or Colleges, or school boards,\u00a0should get together and develop a comprehensive system of training for all teachers\u00a0and ensure that such programs are\u00a0continually updated. Similarly, a common plan and set of standards needs to be established across a jurisdiction for hiring and promotion linked to proper training in teaching and learning, through the establishment of appropriate working groups that would\u00a0include professionals from learning technology units and professional\u00a0development offices.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.4 Set standards<\/h3>\n

The system-wide\u00a0working groups should agree on a \u2018core\u2019 curriculum, minimum standards, and measures of performance for pre-service training in teaching for each sector. These standards should include knowledge and skills needed by learners in a digital age. No person should be hired to new positions that have a major teaching component without recognized training in teaching, once the training system is in place.<\/p>\n

For in-service professional development, one strategy would be to require\u00a0an individual professional development plan for every teacher or instructor\u00a0annually negotiated between the teacher\u00a0and their head of department. This plan would include regular up-dating in new teaching methods and technologies,\u00a0similar to the compulsory professional development programs for medical practitioners. Different individual professional development plans will be needed for different subject areas.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.5 Government as watch dog and enforcer<\/h3>\n

Governments should exert pressure on school boards, colleges and universities\u00a0to ensure that an adequate pre-service and in-service training system is in place, as a condition of future funding.\u00a0Governments should refuse to fund any public institution that does not follow the standards for training in teaching set and endorsed by the\u00a0relevant system-wide authorities.<\/p>\n

12.2.4.6 Integrate internally<\/h3>\n

Blended and fully online teaching and learning technologies should be seen as integral components of professional development, not as separate activities. Therefore\u00a0faculty development offices should be integrated with learning technology support units into Centres for Teaching and Learning (either centrally or divisionally, depending on the size of the institution), where this has not already occurred.<\/p>\n

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 12.2.4 Teachers brainstorming about using technology for teaching<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\n

12.2.5 Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n

We would not dream of allowing doctors or pilots do their work without formal training related to their main work activities, yet this is exactly the situation regarding teaching in post-secondary education. We have to move from a system of voluntary\u00a0amateurism to a professional, comprehensive system of training for teaching in post-secondary education, and a modern, up-to-date curriculum for pre-service and in-service training of school teachers. This book attempts to provide at least a basic curriculum for this kind of training.<\/p>\n

I have suggested some solutions to the systemic problem. Others\u00a0support the professional communities of practice route, which is more culturally acceptable to university faculty, but does not meet the test of being comprehensive and systematic.<\/p>\n

Online learning and new learning technologies\u00a0are not the cause of the problem nor the solution, but they do\u00a0provide a necessary catalyst for change. Our students deserve no less than properly trained teachers. The current situation, at least in post-secondary education, is increasingly unacceptable, a truth no-one dares to speak. It\u2019s about time we dealt with it.<\/p>\n

\n

Activity 12.2\u00a0Identifying your professional training\u00a0needs<\/h3>\n

1. Do you believe the professional development system is ‘broken’? Is this as true for school teacher education as it is for post-secondary education? Or does the training system in your organisation work reasonably well for teaching\u00a0in a digital age?<\/p>\n

2. Would it be better not to train faculty in universities to teach, but just put them in working groups with instructional designers and media producers?<\/p>\n

3. Having read this book (or parts of it) can you now define your own professional training needs? Can you get support for this where you work?<\/p>\n

4. In universities, faculty themselves control appointment, tenure and promotion committees. What could be done to make teaching count for more in appointments, tenure and promotion without weakening the academic status or standing of a university?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

References<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Bates, A. and Sangr\u00e0, A. (2011) Managing Technology in Higher Education: Strategies for Transforming Teaching and Learning<\/a> San Francisco: Jossey-Bass\/John Wiley & Co.<\/p>\n

Christensen Hughes, J. and Mighty, J. (eds.) (2010) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education<\/a> Montreal QC and Kingston ON: McGill-Queen\u2019s University Press, 350 pp<\/p>\n

Knapper, C. (2010) ‘Changing Teaching Practice: Barriers and Strategies’ in ChristensenHughes, J. and Mighty, J. eds.\u00a0<\/span>Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education<\/em>\u00a0Toronto ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-2260","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":2249,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3415,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2260\/revisions\/3415"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/2249"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/2260\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=2260"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=2260"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/teachinginadigitalage\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=2260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}