See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342692111

How a professional development programme for university teachers impacts

their teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge

Article  in  Higher Education Research and Development · July 2020

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957

CITATIONS READS

25 617

9 authors, including:

Sabine Fabriz Miriam Hansen

Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
16 PUBLICATIONS   156 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carmen Heckmann Julia Mordel

Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
11 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gute Lehre in der Hochschule View project

Fortbildung zum inklusiven Experimentieren im Physikunterricht („FINEX“) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Holger Horz on 13 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

How a professional development programme

for university teachers impacts their teaching-
related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective
knowledge

Sabine Fabriz , Miriam Hansen , Carmen Heckmann , Julia Mordel , Julia

Mendzheritskaya , Sebastian Stehle , Lukas Schulze-Vorberg , Immanuel
Ulrich & Holger Horz

To cite this article: Sabine Fabriz , Miriam Hansen , Carmen Heckmann , Julia Mordel , Julia
Mendzheritskaya , Sebastian Stehle , Lukas Schulze-Vorberg , Immanuel Ulrich & Holger Horz
(2020): How a professional development programme for university teachers impacts their teaching-
related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge, Higher Education Research &
Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957

Published online: 04 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 83

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957

How a professional development programme for university

teachers impacts their teaching-related self-efficacy, self-
concept, and subjective knowledge
Sabine Fabriz a, Miriam Hansena, Carmen Heckmanna, Julia Mordel a
,
Julia Mendzheritskayaa, Sebastian Stehlea, Lukas Schulze-Vorberga,
Immanuel Ulrich b and Holger Horza
a
Department for Educational Psychology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany; bIUBH, Frankfurt, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The professional development of academic teaching staff has Received 2 October 2019
become increasingly visible in higher education, even though Accepted 14 May 2020
there is still not enough evidence on how teachers change
KEYWORDS
through such initiatives. Because flexibility in teaching is a Higher education;
commonly found demand, knowledge and core beliefs of one’s professional development;
own ability to teach are pivotal. We present data on N = 73 self-efficacy; self-concept;
instructors at a German university who participated in a subjective knowledge
comprehensive training programme on academic teaching. Self-
reported data on teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and
subjective knowledge about teaching and learning were collected
in a pre–post design at the beginning of the programme and
afterwards. Improvement in all three variables was found over time.

Introduction
Over the past decades, substantial effort has been made to improve and sustain instruc-
tional quality at higher education institutions around the world (Hénard & Roseveare,
2012). Quality of teaching is – among other factors – affected by teacher characteristics
(cf. Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010; Hattie, 2015), therefore programmes are offered
to teaching staff of higher education institutions aiming at the development of teaching
skills and effective teaching (Simon & Pleschová, 2013; Taylor & Rege Colet, 2010). It
can be expected that influencing teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning as well
as their knowledge about teaching methods will lead to changes in teaching practices,
which in turn will positively affect student learning (Gibbs, 2010).
While professional development has been an integral part of teaching at universities in
the United States, Australia, Canada, and the UK for more than 30 years (Jones, Lygo-
Baker, Markless, Rienties, & Di Napoli, 2017; Land & Gordon, 2013), professional devel-
opment of academic staff has long been disregarded in many European countries (e.g.,
Berendt, 1998; Ulrich & Heckmann, 2017). As a result of the Bologna Process, the aim
of which is to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher education qua-
lifications across Europe (e.g., Adam & Gemlich, 2000), there has been a significant

CONTACT Sabine Fabriz fabriz@psych.uni-frankfurt.de

© 2020 HERDSA
2 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

increase in such programmes in Germany in recent years (Wilkesmann & Lauer, 2015). As
part of various national initiatives to enhance teaching, new centres for teaching and learn-
ing have been established and professional development programmes at higher education
institutions have been extended and diversified (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012).
In many countries, there are significant differences in such programmes within and
across nations in terms of degree of formalization, obligation, or dissemination rate.
For example, in most higher education institutions in the UK, new lecturers are expected
to complete a Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning (Sambell, Brown, &
Graham, 2017), whereas in Germany, such programmes are usually not linked to academic
degrees and participation is mostly voluntary. It should be noted that while other countries
provide established career tracks for teaching, academic careers in Germany mostly rely on
research, including performance-related pay partly based on research output (Lauer &
Wilkesmann, 2019). Teaching excellence initiatives exist by now (e.g., Land & Gordon,
2015) but still raise less attention than the research-related equivalents. Accordingly,
the professional development of teaching staff is considered a personal undertaking and
only recently has it been regarded as instrumental for an academic career. To make pro-
fessional development programmes appealing for staff, centres for teaching and learning
tend to offer a wide range of courses in highly flexible programme structures. Most of these
programmes do not have a fixed curriculum but rather offer modules comprising work-
shops on various specific topics (e.g., teaching large groups, providing feedback, formative
assessment), thus allowing a high degree of flexibility regarding content and time. Further-
more, academics participating in professional development programmes in Germany are
usually diverse in terms of teaching skills and experience, prior knowledge about teaching,
and interests. For example, in some departments a doctoral degree is required to teach
courses, while in others, recent graduates are expected to teach undergraduate students.
There is agreement that the evaluation of academic development is challenging (Chal-
mers & Gardiner, 2015; Hughes et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2017; Winter, Turner, Spowart,
Muneer, & Kneale, 2017). Difficulties include defining the nature of effectiveness,
ranging from participants’ perceived satisfaction to teacher self-efficacy and student per-
formance (Hughes et al., 2016). Challenges continue with the question of how to measure
effectiveness (Winter et al., 2017). Furthermore, controlling direct and indirect influences
involved can be quite complex (De Rijdt, Stes, van der Vleuten, & Dochy, 2013). For
Germany, additional challenges arise from the aforementioned flexibility in programme
structure regarding content and time, as well as the relatively small number of participants
in workshops. However, understanding how teachers develop as a result of participating in
such programmes would help to understand underlying systematics. In the long run, gath-
ering evidence on this issue should not only contribute to the scientific knowledge but also
help to further assure the quality of professional development programmes regarding
teaching and learning in higher education institutions.

Effectiveness of professional development programmes

Although the general aim of teaching and learning-related professional development pro-
grammes is to foster teaching skills (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004) and a positive attitude toward
teaching (Nasmith, Saroyan, Steinert, Daigle, & Franco, 1997), there is little evidence of
whether participation actually has the mentioned effects (Sadler & Reimann, 2018).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3

Also, it remains unclear as to how participants’ learning is affected (e.g., Renta-Davids,

Jiménez-González, Fandos-Garrido, & González-Soto, 2016; Stes, Maeyer, de Gijbels, &
van Petegem, 2012). Studies often focus on changes in participants’ attitudes towards or
approaches to teaching and learning in higher education while disregarding other
aspects of teachers’ learning.
Furthermore, besides the formal learning processes, interaction between peers, which is
usually promoted in the programmes, can also be assumed to have a positive effect on aca-
demics’ knowledge and teaching skills (Thomson & Trigwell, 2018; Wilkesmann & Lauer,
2015), making it even harder to distinguish possible effects.
Empirical research on the impact of professional development programmes in the field
of teaching and learning continues to be conducted (e.g., Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Meizlish,
Wright, Howard, & Kaplan, 2018; Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi, 2008; Stes et al.,
2012; Tennill & Cohen, 2013; Ulrich, 2013), and the results are not without ambiguity.
While several studies confirmed positive effects of professional development programmes
on approaches to and conceptions of teaching (cf. Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Hanbury, Prosser,
& Rickinson, 2008), other studies found contradictory results. Within the few studies
employing control group designs (cf. Kirkpatrick, 1996; Stes, Min-Leliveld, Gijbels, &
van Petegem, 2010), few studies report significant effects (e.g., Fendler & Gläser-Zikuda,
2013; Nasmith et al., 1997; Stes et al., 2012). This might be due to the slow pace of devel-
opmental processes (e.g., Gibbs & Coffey, 2004) or to the Hawthorne effect (Shayer, 1992),
meaning members of the control group improved their teaching because they had become
more aware of it, or because they had taken part in other equally effective interventions to
develop their teaching competencies. It has also been argued that teaching effectiveness
might develop as a result of teaching practice over time (Knight, Tait, & Yorke, 2006).
Taking the above-mentioned findings into account, we propose that a promising
approach to understanding effects of professional development programmes on teaching
and learning would be to shift from traditional intervention studies with control group
designs to studies investigating changes in various broader aspects of teachers’ learning
over time (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2003). Furthermore, considering broader
aspects, such as teacher self-efficacy and subjective knowledge about teaching, offers the
possibility to investigate the effect of comprehensive professional development pro-
grammes without considering the actual subject matter and the specific content provided
during the programme. Some empirical findings of studies in which this approach was
taken are summarized below.

Teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge

In line with Taylor and Rege Colet’s (2010) definition, we understand professional devel-
opment in the field of teaching and learning as activities designed to improve teachers’
skills and competencies so that they can enhance students’ learning. We also follow the
understanding of professional development offered by Boud and Brew (2013), who under-
line the importance of integrating academic development activities within professional
practice, addressing not only academics’ skills and knowledge but considering all
aspects of academic work. To clarify the aspects of teacher competencies, Baumert and
Kunter (2013) proposed their Model of Teachers’ Professional Competence. This model
originates in secondary education, still, it suggests that teachers’ professional competencies
4 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

include their knowledge, skills, beliefs, motivation, and self-regulation (Kunter et al.,
2013), which can be assumed to apply to the context of higher education as well.
The above-mentioned approaches to teaching (cf. Prosser & Trigwell, 2006) represent
teachers’ subjective theories, that is, beliefs, about teaching. In contrast, motivational
orientations and self-regulation include self-related cognitions (Baumert & Kunter,
2013). These self-related cognitions are independent of the special focus of a professional
development programme but are assumed to be affected by participation in the pro-
gramme. For example, teachers are expected to develop stronger beliefs of control
over their teaching because acquiring and developing planning skills should help them
anticipate teaching situations, as well as possible obstacles in achieving learning goals.
Also, building a repertoire of teaching and learning methods should allow teachers to
make appropriate pedagogical choices, and establishing an elaborate set of criteria for
student success should make assessment more transparent and, again, help teachers to
feel in control of the assessment process. Because teachers have the opportunity to
apply their newly acquired skills and knowledge immediately in their teaching, it can
be presumed that these newly acquired competencies will have a positive effect on
their self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997) regarding teaching, as well as their self-
concept as a teacher (Roche & Marsh, 2000). As it is assumed that participation in pro-
fessional development successfully equips teaching staff with a selection of teaching skills,
the aforementioned positive effect should occur irrespective of differences regarding
content specificity.
Self-efficacy beliefs for teaching have been investigated in the past, but despite the fact
that most of such studies have a common grounding in Bandura’s theory (1997), they
follow different foci and are directed at different educational settings. Burton, Bamberry,
and Harris-Boundy (2005), distinguish between personal teaching efficacy and general
teaching efficacy, the former being teachers’ beliefs about their personal ability to
promote students’ learning, and the latter being their general belief that learning can
be influenced by a teacher. Personal teaching efficacy has been analysed in many
studies of secondary education, the results of which indicate that higher levels correlate
positively with student achievement (Ashton & Webb, 1986), as well as their interest
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Further, in a study with preservice
teachers, individuals with a higher level of personal teaching efficacy employed a
wider variety of teaching methods than their peers with lower levels (Gordon &
Debus, 2002).
While teaching efficacy has been explored extensively in secondary education, it rarely
has been investigated in higher education (cf. Postareff et al., 2007). Overall, more teach-
ing experience seems to correlate with higher teaching efficacy (Fendler & Gläser-Zikuda,
2013; Woolfolk Hoy & Spero, 2005). In one of the few studies conducted, Young and
Kline (1996) found that general self-efficacy correlated positively with the willingness
of teachers from the faculty of social sciences to participate in professional development
programmes, but not for teachers from the management faculty. Burton et al. (2005)
found an increase in novice teachers’ teaching efficacy after they had participated in a
work-related seminar. Postareff et al. (2007) scrutinized the effect of the amount of ped-
agogical training at a university in Finland and found an increase in self-efficacy only in
those teachers who had participated in training that lasted longer than one year (i.e.,
more than 30 ECTS, Postareff et al., 2007). Johannes, Fendler, and Seidel (2013) also
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 5

found an increase in teaching-related self-efficacy in a longitudinal study accompanying

a one-year professional development programme. Mowbray and Perry (2015) report
improved teacher self-efficacy following a comparably short professional development
intervention of six weeks.
Teachers’ self-concepts, that is, their perceptions of the effectiveness of their teaching
(Roche & Marsh, 2000), can also be developed. Roche and Marsh describe teacher self-
concepts as powerful mediators of various teaching-related outcomes such as teaching per-
formance, motivation to teach, probability of engaging in activities to improve teaching,
and satisfaction with one’s professional efforts.
Improvement of teaching-related knowledge has also been the focus of studies consid-
ering the impact of professional development programmes. It was shown that participants
of professional development programmes gained knowledge (e.g., Howland & Wedman,
2004; Johannes et al., 2013; Quirk, DeWitt, Lasser, Huppert, & Hunniwell, 1998; Sheets
& Henry, 1984; Ulrich, 2013), while in other studies, no such effect was revealed (e.g.,
Fendler & Gläser-Zikuda, 2013; Nasmith et al., 1997). However, some methodological
issues such as missing pre-tests and control groups, as well as small sample sizes, are
characteristic for this group of research.

Hypotheses
The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of a comprehensive pro-
fessional development programme on higher education teachers’ self-related cognitions.
Building on the model of teachers’ professional competence and given the results of pre-
vious studies, it can be assumed that teachers’ self-related cognitions are an important
indicator of the quality of their teaching activities and students’ learning outcomes. Fol-
lowing Chalmers and Gardiner’s (2015) Academic Professional Development Frame-
work, we investigated the impact at the programme level with a focus on teachers’
knowledge, skills and practice, as well as teachers’ perceptions of changes regarding
their self-related cognitions.
Regardless of the subject or focus of professional development programmes, teachers
are supposed to develop their self-related cognitions (e.g., teacher self-efficacy, self-
concept for teaching, subjective knowledge about teaching) as important aspects of pro-
fessional teachers’ competence. Therefore, investigating the change of teachers’ self-
related cognitions due to participation in a professional development programme, we
made the following hypotheses:

(1) Effect over time: Participation in the professional development programme for higher
education teachers will enhance teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and sub-
jective knowledge over time.
(2) Effect of teaching experience:
(a) Regardless of disciplinary background and teaching experience, higher education
teachers’ self-related cognitions will improve by participating in the professional
development programme.
(b) Teachers with little teaching experience will benefit most.
6 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

Method
Participants
The sample comprised academic staff at Goethe University, Germany who finished a pro-
fessional development programme on academic teaching between winter 2013 and
summer 2019. The programme consisted of three modules (Table 1) and will be further
described in the subsequent paragraph. From the 232 teaching staff members who com-
pleted the programme during this period, we were able to include N = 73 participants
with complete data from pre- and post-measurements. Because the average group size
in each workshop was relatively small (a maximum of 14 individuals) and participation
was voluntary, we limited person-related data to the participants’ disciplinary background
and teaching experience to ensure anonymity. About half of the participants (53%)
claimed to have had one to four semesters of teaching experience at the time of the
pre-measurement (range: 0 to > 10 semesters). Most (n = 60) claimed to have had experi-
ence with the teaching format of seminars, 42 with teaching practical courses, such as
tutorials and training courses, and 25 with delivering lectures. During the pre-measure-
ment, very few reported having had experience in teaching large groups (>100 students,
n = 13; 50–100 students, n = 27). Participants more often claimed to have had experience
in teaching small or medium-sized groups (3–20 students, n = 46; 20–50 students, n = 52).
Participants were teachers in 15 of the 16 faculties of the university. Teachers were distrib-
uted well across science-related disciplines (n = 19), the humanities (n = 19) and the social
sciences (n = 25). Three participants did not specify their discipline (n = 3).

The professional development programme

The programme investigated in this study was open to university teachers in all disciplines.
Participants received a teaching certificate upon successful completion of three modules,
each comprising a number of workshops on a variety of topics (e.g., teaching large
groups, giving feedback, and formative assessment). The objective of Module 1 (M1,
Basics in Academic Teaching) is to provide participants with the training they need to
teach effectively in higher education. The module starts with a consultation in order to deter-
mine which courses would meet the participants’ needs and interests best. M1 comprises two
compulsory workshops: one on constructivist teaching and learning in higher education and

Table 1. The three modules.

Module 3: Individual advice &
Module 1: Basics Module 2: Facilitation teaching project
M1-0: Individual counselling Five workshops to be chosen from the • M3-1: Teaching project (SoTL)
M1-1: Theory and practice of teaching following areas: • ‘Educational Research’ (1/2 day)
and learning M2-1: Course design • Individual mentoring Teaching
• Workshop (2 days) M2-2: Teaching courses observation
• Reflecting team (2 sessions) M2-3: Assessment & feedback • M3-2: Documentation
• Peer observation M1-2: Presenting in M2-4: Quality assurance • Academic report on teaching
academia (2 days) M2-5: Student support and guidance project
M2-6: Digital media in teaching • Presentation of teaching project
Portfolio
21 ECVETa
a
European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/vocational-policy/
ecvet_en
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 7

teachers’ responsibilities (M1-1), and one on presentation skills (M1-2). It further includes
peer observation of, and feedback on, one teaching session, as well as two 90-minute sessions
in reflecting teams on participants’ main teaching-related challenges. Module 2 (M2, Facili-
tation) comprises five workshops the participants can chose from six topics (see Table 1). In
Module 3 (M3), participants complete a teaching project (Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning – SoTL, e.g., Hubball & Clarke, 2010). Possible foci of this project include the effec-
tiveness of a particular teaching method, or strategies for approaching teaching assignments.
For further support, M3 includes a compulsory workshop on educational research strategies,
as well as individual mentoring opportunities and feedback on teaching from academic
development staff. To complete the module, participants write a report on their project
and deliver an oral presentation at a colloquium. Because reflection is considered crucial
for the development of university teachers (Nevgi & Löfström, 2015), reflection tasks accom-
pany all modules and ask participants to show that they are able to scaffold newly acquired
knowledge and transfer it to their teaching practice. Overall, the module-based structure of
the programme offers participants a considerable amount of flexibility in terms of content
and time. Although participants are generally expected to complete the modules in chrono-
logical order, to accommodate their time-related needs with regard to content, they are
allowed to attend workshops from modules in non-chronological order. Further, they are
permitted to take as much time as they need to complete modules.

Procedure and design

In the introductory workshop (M1-1) and after its completion (usually during the presen-
tation of the SoTL project in M3-2), participants completed a set of short questionnaires,
which involved rating on scales their teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and sub-
jective knowledge about topics related to teaching and learning in higher education.
Because participants were allowed to learn at their own pace and attend modules accord-
ing to their time- and work-related resources, the duration of the programme differed for
participants between 2 and 10 semesters (M = 3.95, SD = 1.57).

Instruments
Teaching-related self-efficacy
We administered an adapted version of a questionnaire developed by Schwarzer and Jer-
usalem (1999) on which participants rated 10 items on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘not at all true’
to 5 = ‘completely true’) regarding their perceptions and beliefs about their ability to con-
tribute to overcoming the challenges associated with the teaching praxis (sample item: ‘For
every problem that comes up when I am planning my teaching, I can find a solution.’). As
an estimate for the reliability of all standardized measures, we calculated the internal con-
sistencies using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). For the self-efficacy scale, we found a
Cronbach’s α of .907 in our sample.

Self-concept
We administered an adapted version of a questionnaire developed by Pekrun et al. (2007)
on which participants rated six items on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘not at all true’ to 5 = ‘com-
pletely true’) describing beliefs that teachers may have about themselves concerning their
8 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

academic role (sample item: ‘I am a good teacher.’). From our data, we found a Cronbach’s
α of .728.

Subjective knowledge about teaching

Participants rated their knowledge (‘How much do you know about … ’) on a 5-point scale
(1 = ‘very little’ to 5 = ‘very much’) in 10 teaching-related areas (e.g., knowledge about
improving learning outcomes, knowledge about the course planning, knowledge about
student assessment, etc., Ulrich, 2013). Cronbach’s α across all items was .874.

Evaluation of the workshops

To assess the overall quality of the intervention, we had participants answer three open-
ended questions and rate 24 items on seven subscales about each workshop. This infor-
mation was originally assessed for an immediate evaluation of workshops (cf., ‘reaction’
level of evaluation; Kirkpatrick, 1996); in the course of this study, we included the assessed
data as a manipulation check. Three of the subscales correspond to our dependent vari-
ables: balance between theory and practice, learning outcomes, and usefulness. We aggre-
gated data at the subscale level for all the workshops attended. On average, we had 6.46
(SD = 2.74) evaluations per participant. To obtain a certificate, participants had to com-
plete a total of eight workshops in the three modules. Some participants had attended
more workshops than required while others had obtained credits for attending similar
workshops at other higher education institutions or did not take part in the voluntary
evaluation. The total number of workshop evaluations was, of course, much higher (N
= 3,280 by 1,279 participants) and included data of participants who had not completed
the programme at the time of analysis or had attended only single workshops. Cronbach’s
α for the selected scales was between .722 and .911 based on the total number of evalu-
ations (see Table 2).
As mentioned above, the programme consisted in large part of workshops attended by
the participants in our sample, as well as by additional participants who were in the
process of completing the programme. The results indicate that participants perceived
the workshops they had taken part in as balanced in theory and practice and as useful
for their current and future teaching. Furthermore, they claimed to know more about
teaching and learning in higher education after participating in the workshops (see
Table 2).

Table 2. Results of the workshop evaluations.

Aggregated Total data of all
data of workshop
No. participants participants
Scale and source items (N = 70) (N = 3280)
M SD M SD α
Balance between theory and practice (Gollwitzer & Schlotz, 2003) 3 3.53 .34 3.52 .56 .722
Learning outcomes (Kauffeld, Brennecke, & Strack, 2009) 5 3.31 .32 3.28 .67 .911
Usefulness (self-developed) 3 3.55 .33 3.52 .68 .901
Note: Response format: 1 = ‘not at all true’ to 4 = ‘completely true’.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 9

Results
First, we checked for intercorrelations among the criterion variables and found significant
results both between and within the pre- and post-measurements for self-efficacy and self-
concept and within subjective knowledge (see Table 3 below). Teaching-related self-
efficacy correlated significantly with subjective knowledge at pre- and post-measurement
times, whereas we could not find a correlation between the pre-measurement of self-
concept and subjective knowledge. Overall, the results reveal a stronger correlation
between teaching-related self-efficacy and self-concept, which are forms of self-represen-
tation, than among teaching-related self-efficacy and self-concept and knowledge about
teaching in higher education, which is, to some extent, a more abstract construct.
After the correlation analysis, we conducted a 2 × 2 × 2 MANOVA with repeated
measures for time of assessment and teaching experience, as well as discipline as
between-subject factors for self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge. For this
analysis, we took into consideration the amount of teaching experience the participants
had (little = 0–4 semesters / average = 5–8 semesters / a lot = more than 8 semesters)
and the discipline (categorized as science, humanities, and social sciences).

Effect over time (Hypothesis 1)

In accordance with our first hypothesis, a significant multivariate main effect was found in
the MANOVA for time of assessment, F(3,58) = 28.198, p = .000, h2p = .59. Table 4 shows
the mean scores for the criterion variables at both assessment points for the three criterion
variables. Also in line with Hypothesis 1, we found a significant increase in all three vari-
ables between measuring points before and after the participation in the professional
development programme (see Table 4).

Effect of teaching experience (Hypothesis 2)

In accordance with the first part of our second hypothesis (2a), there was no significant
effect for teaching experience, F(6,118) = 1.002, p = .428, h2p = .05, nor for discipline, F
(9,180) = 1.084, p = .376, h2p = .05. Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, there was no significant
interaction effect between time of assessment and teaching experience, F(6,118) = 1.936,
p = .081, h2p = .090. Thus, the single ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects for
self-concept and subjective knowledge, but not for self-efficacy. This can be interpreted
as a trend in favour of Hypothesis 2b. Regarding self-concept and subjective knowledge,
participants with the least teaching experience benefitted most (see Figure 1).

Table 3. Pearson intercorrelations for the criterion variables.

Self-efficacy Self-concept Self-concept Subjective Subjective knowledge
post pre post knowledge pre post
Self-efficacy pre .509** .695** .302** .570** .255*
Self-efficacy post .495** .732** .260* .542**
Self-concept pre .412** .483** .399**
Self-concept post .001 .607**
Subjective .264*
knowledge pre
Note: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, N = 70 for all analyses.
10 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

Table 4. Pre- and post-measures and results for time of assessment.

Pre Post
M SD M SD Change over time
Self-efficacy 3.45 .56 4.05 .53 F(1,73) = 38.114, p = .000, h2p = .34
Self-concept 3.38 .50 3.84 .50 F(1,73) = 12.591, p = .001, h2p = .15
Subjective knowledge 2.67 .66 3.97 .49 F(1,73) = 108.364, p = .000, h2p = .60

Discussion
We found significant change in the teaching-related variables through the participation in
the professional development programme under investigation. In line with Hypothesis 1,
participants’ teaching-related self-efficacy and self-concept, as well as subjective knowl-
edge about teaching, improved after participating in the programme. This tendency has
been found in previous studies in school and higher education contexts (e.g., Postareff
et al., 2008; Roche & Marsh, 2000). Taking into account the association between teachers’
positive emotions on their teaching, such as being proud and motivated, and a student-
focused approach to teaching (Trigwell, 2012), these findings suggest that participation
in academic development programmes could indirectly influence the shift to student-
focused teaching through the strengthening of self-efficacy, improvement of self-
concept, and increase of subjective knowledge. Further, our findings partially confirm
Hypothesis 2, as neither teaching experience nor discipline affected the three dependent
variables as a main effect (2a). Additionally, there was a trend in the direction of Hypoth-
esis 2b, as teachers with the least teaching experience benefitted most for their teaching-
related self-concept and subjective knowledge. Nevertheless, the overall interaction effect
was not significant and there was no significant effect of teaching experience on teaching-
related self-efficacy. The small or non-significant effects described above reflect an overall
tendency stated in studies aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching development
programmes (i.e., Trigwell, Caballero, & Han, 2012): Positive changes in teaching

Figure 1. Mean scores of teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge about
teaching as a function of time of assessment and teaching experience.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 11

quality as a the result of participating in academic development can be observed when

applying multiple indicators, combining both teacher and student perspectives with
organizational context.

Limitations
The pre- and post-measurement design of this study allowed us to determine the influence
of participation in a professional development programme on teaching-related self-
efficacy, self-concept and subjective knowledge about teaching in higher education over
time. However, this approach has some limitations that should be considered when inter-
preting the results. First, the data analysed were collected by self-report questionnaires. To
address this limitation and to confirm the results, we conducted additional analyses of
individual workshop evaluations as a manipulation check. Rather, future evaluative
studies should apply objective measures for university teachers’ knowledge about teaching
and learning in higher education, for example, in terms of what methods they can apply to
activate students or what examination formats they are practising and why. The applied
instruments were not supposed to gather qualitative data from participants or academic
developers that could provide additional explanation of the quantitative findings. Thus,
it is recommendable to include open questions regarding individual skills, beliefs and
knowledge while investigating possible effects. Second, our design did not include a
control or waitlist control group because of the voluntary character of the professional
development programme. This makes the interpretation of the evaluation of professional
development programmes at the higher education level in Germany challenging. Instead,
our study had a one group pre–post design and the data gathered from individual work-
shop evaluations were analysed in relation to the criterion variables under investigation.
To strengthen the statistical evidence of the effects obtained, the use of quasi-experimental
designs would be favourable. Third, the universality of intervention cannot be granted
because of the high level of temporal and contextual flexibility of the professional devel-
opment programme presented here (e.g., different durations of certificate programme in
accordance with individual academic career paths or selection of various workshops in
Module 2 in accordance with individual interests and needs). Nevertheless, the content
of modules 1 and 3 is identical for all participants, ensuring an adequate degree of com-
parability. Moreover, we suppose that the opportunity to choose the content and pace of
learning makes the effects of participation in the professional development programme
comparable. Fourth, even though sample size always is a challenge in studies with
faculty members, further research should survey a larger number of participants to
allow consideration of covariates such as subject area, or approaches to teaching.

Conclusions and outlook

From the results obtained in this study, we conclude that the professional development
programme presented here had a positive impact on participants’ teaching-related self-
efficacy and self-concept, as well as subjective knowledge about teaching. Due to the
accreditation standards for teaching development programmes established by the
German Association of University Teaching (DGHD, 2019), we claim that it is possible
to apply these findings and the following implications to similar programmes at other
12 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

universities in Germany and Europe. Consequently, activities contributing to positive

experiences of teaching-related competences and skills, as well as to deeper reflection
on academic roles in higher education, should be included in professional development
programmes for academic teaching staff.
Further, we confirm that teachers with less experience perceived greater improvement
in their teaching-related self-concept and subjective knowledge about teaching after taking
part in the programme than their peers with more experience. Therefore, we suggest invol-
ving more novice teachers in professional development programmes in higher education.
We recommend that alternative approaches should be taken to deal with methodological
challenges while evaluating professional development programmes at the higher education
level. Finally, in future studies, implications concerning the implementation and assess-
ment of professional development should be explored.

Acknowledgements
The professional development program of this work was supported by the German Federal Minis-
try of Education and Research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

ORCID
Sabine Fabriz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2262-9283
Julia Mordel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8469-1317
Immanuel Ulrich http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1406-8711

References
Adam, S., & Gemlich, V. (2000). Report for the European Commission – ECTS Extension Feasibility
Project. Retrieved from http://media.ehea.info/file/BFUG_Seminar/96/8/ECTS_ext_feasibility_
553968.pdf
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, classroom behavior, and student
achievement. In P. T. Ashton & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Research on teaching monograph series.
Making a difference (pp. 125–144). New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In
M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive acti-
vation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers (pp. 25–48). Boston,
MA: Springer US.
Berendt, B. (1998). How to support and to bring about the shift from teaching to learning through
academic staff development programmes: Examples and perspectives. Higher Education in
Europe, 23(3), 317–329.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 13

Boud, D., & Brew, A. (2013). Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice:
Implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18
(3), 208–221.
Burton, J. P., Bamberry, N.-J., & Harris-Boundy, J. (2005). Developing personal teaching efficacy in
new teachers in university settings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 160–
173.
Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and
impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46,
81–91.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–
334.
De Rijdt, D., Stes, A., van der Vleuten, C., & Dochy, F. (2013). Influencing variables and moderators
of transfer of learning to the workplace within the area of staff development in higher education.
Educational Research Review, 8, 48–74.
Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher
education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124.
DGHD. (2019). (Re-)Akkreditierung von Programmen und Einrichtungen. Retrieved from https://
www.dghd.de/praxis/akkreditierungskommission/akko-downloads/
Fendler, J., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2013). Teaching experience and the “shift from teaching to learn-
ing”. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 8(3), 15–28.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of quality. York: Higher Education Academy.
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.
Gollwitzer, M., & Schlotz, W. (2003). Das “Trierer Inventar zur Lehrveranstaltungsevaluation”
(TRIL). In G. Krampen & H. Zayer (Eds.), Psychologiedidaktik und Evaluation IV (pp. 114–
128). Bonn: DPV.
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching
efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. The British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(4), 483–511.
Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). The differential impact of UK accredited teach-
ing development programmes on academics’ approaches to teaching. Studies in Higher
Education, 33(4), 469–483.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching
and Learning in Psychology, 1, 79–91.
Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and prac-
tices: An IHME guide for higher education institutions. Paris: OECD.
Howland, J., & Wedman, J. (2004). A process model for faculty development: Individualizing tech-
nology learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 239–262.
Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL
in higher education. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–11.
Hughes, J., McKenna, C., Kneale, P., Winter, J., Turner, R., Spowart, L., & Muneer, R. (2016).
Evaluating teaching development in higher education: Towards impact assessment (Literature
Review). York: Higher Education Academy.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2003). Evaluating the quality and impact of professional
development programs. Conference proceedings, ACER “Building Teacher Quality: What does
the research tell us?” (pp. 28–34). Melbourne.
Johannes, C., Fendler, J., & Seidel, T. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the learning environment and
their knowledge base in a training program for novice university teachers. International Journal
for Academic Development, 18(2), 152–165.
Jones, A., Lygo-Baker, S., Markless, S., Rienties, B., & Di Napoli, R. (2017). Conceptualizing impact
in academic development: Finding a way through. Higher Education Research & Development, 36
(1), 116–128.
14 S. FABRIZ ET AL.

Kauffeld, S., Brennecke, J., & Strack, M. (2009). Erfolge sichtbar machen: Das Maßnahmen-Erfolgs-
Inventar (MEI) zur Bewertung von Trainings. In S. Kauffeld, S. Grote, & E. Fieling (Eds.),
Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung (pp. 55–78). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: BK.
Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319–339.
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional
competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820.
Land, R., & Gordon, G. (2013). Enhancing quality in higher education: International perspectives.
International Studies in Higher Education. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.
Land, R., & Gordon, G. (2015). Teaching excellence initiatives: Modalities and operational factors.
York: The Higher Education Academy.
Lauer, S., & Wilkesmann, U. (2019). How the institutional environment affects collegial exchange
about teaching at German research universities: Findings from a nationwide survey. Tertiary
Education and Management, 25(2), 131–144.
Meizlish, D. S., Wright, M. C., Howard, J., & Kaplan, M. L. (2018). Measuring the impact of a new
faculty program using institutional data. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(2),
72–85.
Mowbray, R., & Perry, L. (2015). Improving lecture quality through training in public speaking.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(2), 207–217.
Nasmith, L., Saroyan, A., Steinert, Y., Daigle, N., & Franco, E. D. (1997). Long-term impact of
faculty development workshops: A pilot study. In A. J. J. A. Scherpbier, C. P. M. Vleuten, J. J.
Rethans, & A. F. W. Steeg (Eds.), Advances in medical education (pp. 237–240). Dordrecht:
Springer Science.
Nevgi, A., & Löfström, E. (2015). The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing
reflection and task perception through a university teacher development programme. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60.
Pekrun, R., Vom Hofe, R., Blum, W., Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., & Wartha, S. (2007). Development of
mathematical competencies in adolescence: The PALMA longitudinal study. In M. Prenzel (Ed.),
Studies on the educational quality of schools: The final report on the DFG priority programme (pp.
17–37). Münster: Waxmann.
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teach-
ing in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tate.2006.11.013
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2008). A follow-up study of the effect of pedagogical
training on teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 56(1), 29–43.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching
Inventory. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(Pt 2), 405–419.
Quirk, M. E., DeWitt, T., Lasser, D., Huppert, M., & Hunniwell, E. (1998). Evaluation of primary
care futures: A faculty development program for community health center preceptors. Academic
Medicine, 73(6), 705–707.
Renta-Davids, A. I., Jiménez-González, J. M., Fandos-Garrido, M., & González-Soto, A. P. (2016).
Organisational and training factors affecting academic teacher training outcomes. Teaching in
Higher Education, 21, 219–231.
Roche, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2000). Multiple dimensions of university teacher self-concept.
Instructional Science, 28(5), 439–468.
Sadler, I., & Reimann, N. (2018). Variation in the development of teachers’ understandings of
assessment and their assessment practices in higher education. Higher Education Research &
Development, 37(1), 131–144.
Sambell, K., Brown, S., & Graham, L. (2017). Engaging staff in their own professional development.
In K. Sambell, S. Brown, & L. Graham (Eds.), Professionalism in practice (pp. 227–260). Cham:
Palgrave.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 15

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (Eds.). (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und
Schülermerkmalen: Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der wissenschaf-
tlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Berlin: Schwarzer.
Shayer, M. (1992). Problems and issues in intervention studies. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A.
Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for
education (pp. 107–121). London: Routledge.
Sheets, K. J., & Henry, R. C. (1984). Assessing the impact of faculty development programs in
medical education. Journal of Medical Education, 59(9), 746–748.
Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (Eds.). (2013). Teacher development in higher education: Existing pro-
grams, program impact, and future trends. New York: Routledge.
Stes, A., Maeyer, S., de Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P. (2012). Instructional development for teachers
in higher education: Effects on students’ learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3),
295–308.
Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional devel-
opment in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5
(1), 25–49.
Taylor, K. L., & Rege Colet, N. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational
development: A conceptual framework grounded in practice. In A. Saroyan, & M. Frenay
(Eds.), Building teaching capacities in higher education: A comprehensive international model
(pp. 39–167). Sterling: Stylus.
Tennill, M. M., & Cohen, M. W. (2013). Assessing the long-term impact of a professional develop-
ment program. To Improve the Academy, 32, 145–159.
Thomson, K. E., & Trigwell, K. R. (2018). The role of informal conversations in developing univer-
sity teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1536–1547.
Trigwell, K. (2012). Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their approaches to
teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40(3), 607–621.
Trigwell, K., Caballero, R. K., & Han, F. (2012). Assessing the impact of a university teaching devel-
opment programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 499–511.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Ulrich, I. (2013). Strategisches Qualitätsmanagement in der Hochschullehre: Theoriegeleitete
Workshops für Lehrende zur Förderung kompetenzorientierter Lehre. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Ulrich, I., & Heckmann, C. (2017). Taxonomien hochschuldidaktischer Designs und Methoden aus
pädagogisch-psychologischer Sicht samt Musterbeispielen aus der aktuellen Forschung. die
hochschullehre, 3, 1–28.
Wilkesmann, U., & Lauer, S. (2015). What affects the teaching style of German professors? Evidence
from two nationwide surveys. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(4), 713–736.
Winter, J., Turner, R., Spowart, L., Muneer, R., & Kneale, P. (2017). Evaluating academic develop-
ment in the higher education sector: Academic developers’ reflections on using a toolkit resource.
Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1503–1514.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teach-
ing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.
Young, K. J., & Kline, T. J. B. (1996). Perceived self-efficacy, outcome-efficacy and feedback: Their
effects on professors’ teaching development motivation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 28(1), 43–51.

View publication stats