The Experts below are selected from a list of 82305 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Peter Van Petegem - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Know-who? Linking faculty’s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • know who linking faculty s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • Uncovering changes in university teachers' professional networks during an Instructional Development program
    Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Ann Stes, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    This study examined (1) the extent to which university teachers’ networks changed while they participated in an Instructional Development program, (2) which mechanisms supported or constrained network change, and (3) the extent to which value was created through networks. Longitudinal social network data combined with follow-up interviews were collected over a 2-year time frame from 16 university teachers participating in an Instructional Development program. Results showed that teachers’ networks increased and remained relatively stable after the program had finished. Several underlying mechanisms for network change throughout the program were identified (e.g., departmental culture, network intentionality, trust). Moreover, both expressive (e.g., venting) and instrumental value (e.g., getting ideas or feedback) were created through teachers’ networks. This research contributes to our understanding of the social side of Instructional Development.

  • Instructional Development in higher education: impact on teachers’ teaching behaviour as perceived by students
    Instructional Science, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Liesje Coertjens, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Although Instructional Development has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about the impact on teaching practice. In this study we investigate the impact of Instructional Development on teachers’ teaching behaviour as perceived by students. Quantitative student data were assembled for 15 experimental and 12 control teachers. 45 experimental students and 27 control students were interviewed. Repeated measures analyses of variance and analyses of covariance showed no statistically significant impact of Instructional Development on teaching behaviour. The analysis of the qualitative data sustained this result. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research as well as for the planning of Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Effects of teachers' Instructional Development on students' study approaches in higher education
    Studies in Higher Education, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study the authors investigate the impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students' approach to studying. They also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years versus non-first years). Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre-tests and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multilevel analysis was then conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers' Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for research into Instructional Development are discussed.

Ann Stes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Uncovering changes in university teachers' professional networks during an Instructional Development program
    Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Ann Stes, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    This study examined (1) the extent to which university teachers’ networks changed while they participated in an Instructional Development program, (2) which mechanisms supported or constrained network change, and (3) the extent to which value was created through networks. Longitudinal social network data combined with follow-up interviews were collected over a 2-year time frame from 16 university teachers participating in an Instructional Development program. Results showed that teachers’ networks increased and remained relatively stable after the program had finished. Several underlying mechanisms for network change throughout the program were identified (e.g., departmental culture, network intentionality, trust). Moreover, both expressive (e.g., venting) and instrumental value (e.g., getting ideas or feedback) were created through teachers’ networks. This research contributes to our understanding of the social side of Instructional Development.

  • Instructional Development in higher education: impact on teachers’ teaching behaviour as perceived by students
    Instructional Science, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Liesje Coertjens, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Although Instructional Development has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about the impact on teaching practice. In this study we investigate the impact of Instructional Development on teachers’ teaching behaviour as perceived by students. Quantitative student data were assembled for 15 experimental and 12 control teachers. 45 experimental students and 27 control students were interviewed. Repeated measures analyses of variance and analyses of covariance showed no statistically significant impact of Instructional Development on teaching behaviour. The analysis of the qualitative data sustained this result. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research as well as for the planning of Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Effects of teachers' Instructional Development on students' study approaches in higher education
    Studies in Higher Education, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study the authors investigate the impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students' approach to studying. They also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years versus non-first years). Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre-tests and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multilevel analysis was then conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers' Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for research into Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education : effects on students' learning outcomes
    Teaching in Higher Education, 2012
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study, we investigate the impact of an Instructional Development program for beginning university teachers on students’ learning outcomes. We also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level. Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers’ Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for early career academics: an overview of impact
    Educational Research, 2011
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Background: Over the past decades, the issue of improving teaching in higher education has been seriously addressed. Centres for Instructional Development, aimed at enhancing teaching, have been set up in many countries. Instructional Development for early career academics is perceived to be of particular importance. Given the considerable investments made, questions are raised with regard to the impact of Instructional Development. Purpose: This article gives an overview of four related studies into the impact ofInstructional Development at one European University – the University of Antwerp. The study is prefaced with a conceptual framework and outline of theoretical motives. The results of the four studies are reviewed together and implications from the findings taken as a whole are identified. Programme description: At the University of Antwerp, early career academics have the opportunity to participate in an Instructional Development programme (140 hours of study, spread over 10 months). The programm...

Sven De Maeyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Know-who? Linking faculty’s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • know who linking faculty s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • Effects of teachers' Instructional Development on students' study approaches in higher education
    Studies in Higher Education, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study the authors investigate the impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students' approach to studying. They also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years versus non-first years). Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre-tests and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multilevel analysis was then conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers' Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for research into Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education : effects on students' learning outcomes
    Teaching in Higher Education, 2012
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study, we investigate the impact of an Instructional Development program for beginning university teachers on students’ learning outcomes. We also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level. Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers’ Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education: effects on students' perceptions of the teaching-learning environment.
    British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Background.  Although Instructional Development for teachers has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about its actual impact. In particular, evidence regarding the impact of teachers’ Instructional Development on students’ perceptions of the teaching–learning environment is scarce. Aims.  The impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment was investigated. We also explored whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years vs. non-first years). Sample.  Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1,000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. Method.  A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. Results.  A basic model made clear that teachers did differ from each other with respect to the dependent variables concerned; however, differences in scale scores also resulted to a large extent from differences between students. A second model, in which the moderating impact by way of teacher characteristics, context, and student characteristics was not taken into account, reported no significant effect of training. A third model, examining the net impact of Instructional Development revealed some impact, which was, remarkably, negative. A first interaction model proved a differential impact of Instructional Development for teachers teaching first years and those teaching non-first years. A second one showed that the impact of training depended on the number of students one teaches. Conclusions.  Instructional Development for teachers in higher education does not easily result in effects on students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment. Perspectives for further research into Instructional Development are discussed.

Piet Van Den Bossche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Know-who? Linking faculty’s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • know who linking faculty s networks to stages of Instructional Development
    Higher Education, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Sven De Maeyer, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Research into faculty members’ Instructional Development has primarily focused on individual skills and knowledge. As collegial interactions may support or constrain faculty’s professional Development in higher education, this study compared and contrasted the networks of faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development (novice, experienced non-expert, and experienced expert teachers). Faculty networks comprised the relations that teaching faculty members used to communicate about their teaching practice. To capture these networks, a total of 30 faculty members were interviewed. We used an egocentric network approach to examine the differences between the networks in network size, tie strength, and network diversity. Results based on analyses of variance and multilevel analyses suggested three key findings: (a) Faculty members in different stages of Instructional Development varied in the size of their network; (b) faculty members in different stages of Development had access to different types of networks in terms of tie strength; and (c) faculty members in different stages of Development varied in the diversity of teaching experience in their networks. Experienced expert teachers had larger, stronger, and more diverse networks compared with experienced non-experts. Novices also had larger networks, but they were characterized by lower tie strength and less diversity. These findings demonstrate that network Development is not just a time–age effect, but suggests arrested Development for experienced non-experts linked to limited network input. This provides important evidence for the role of collegial interactions throughout faculty’s Development as a teacher. We further discuss the implications of this study in light of faculty members’ Instructional Development.

  • Uncovering changes in university teachers' professional networks during an Instructional Development program
    Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2015
    Co-Authors: Sara Van Waes, Ann Stes, Piet Van Den Bossche, Nienke M. Moolenaar, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    This study examined (1) the extent to which university teachers’ networks changed while they participated in an Instructional Development program, (2) which mechanisms supported or constrained network change, and (3) the extent to which value was created through networks. Longitudinal social network data combined with follow-up interviews were collected over a 2-year time frame from 16 university teachers participating in an Instructional Development program. Results showed that teachers’ networks increased and remained relatively stable after the program had finished. Several underlying mechanisms for network change throughout the program were identified (e.g., departmental culture, network intentionality, trust). Moreover, both expressive (e.g., venting) and instrumental value (e.g., getting ideas or feedback) were created through teachers’ networks. This research contributes to our understanding of the social side of Instructional Development.

David Gijbels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Effects of teachers' Instructional Development on students' study approaches in higher education
    Studies in Higher Education, 2013
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study the authors investigate the impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students' approach to studying. They also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years versus non-first years). Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre-tests and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multilevel analysis was then conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers' Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for research into Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education : effects on students' learning outcomes
    Teaching in Higher Education, 2012
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on student learning in higher education is scarce. In this study, we investigate the impact of an Instructional Development program for beginning university teachers on students’ learning outcomes. We also explore whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level. Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. The results show limited effects of teachers’ Instructional Development. Several interpretations and perspectives for further research are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education: effects on students' perceptions of the teaching-learning environment.
    British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Background.  Although Instructional Development for teachers has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about its actual impact. In particular, evidence regarding the impact of teachers’ Instructional Development on students’ perceptions of the teaching–learning environment is scarce. Aims.  The impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment was investigated. We also explored whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years vs. non-first years). Sample.  Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1,000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. Method.  A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. Results.  A basic model made clear that teachers did differ from each other with respect to the dependent variables concerned; however, differences in scale scores also resulted to a large extent from differences between students. A second model, in which the moderating impact by way of teacher characteristics, context, and student characteristics was not taken into account, reported no significant effect of training. A third model, examining the net impact of Instructional Development revealed some impact, which was, remarkably, negative. A first interaction model proved a differential impact of Instructional Development for teachers teaching first years and those teaching non-first years. A second one showed that the impact of training depended on the number of students one teaches. Conclusions.  Instructional Development for teachers in higher education does not easily result in effects on students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment. Perspectives for further research into Instructional Development are discussed.

  • Instructional Development for teachers in higher education: effects on students' perceptions of the teaching-learning environment.
    The British journal of educational psychology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, Sven De Maeyer, David Gijbels, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Although Instructional Development for teachers has become an important topic in higher education, little is known about its actual impact. In particular, evidence regarding the impact of teachers' Instructional Development on students' perceptions of the teaching-learning environment is scarce. The impact of an Instructional Development programme for beginning university teachers on students' perceptions of the teaching and learning environment was investigated. We also explored whether this impact is dependent on class size and student level (first years vs. non-first years). Quantitative data were gathered from more than 1,000 students at pre- and post-tests, using a quasi-experimental design. A multi-level analysis was conducted in which five models were estimated. A basic model made clear that teachers did differ from each other with respect to the dependent variables concerned; however, differences in scale scores also resulted to a large extent from differences between students. A second model, in which the moderating impact by way of teacher characteristics, context, and student characteristics was not taken into account, reported no significant effect of training. A third model, examining the net impact of Instructional Development revealed some impact, which was, remarkably, negative. A first interaction model proved a differential impact of Instructional Development for teachers teaching first years and those teaching non-first years. A second one showed that the impact of training depended on the number of students one teaches. Instructional Development for teachers in higher education does not easily result in effects on students' perceptions of the teaching and learning environment. Perspectives for further research into Instructional Development are discussed. ©2011 The British Psychological Society.

  • the impact of Instructional Development in higher education the state of the art of the research
    Educational Research Review, 2010
    Co-Authors: Ann Stes, David Gijbels, Mariska Minleliveld, Peter Van Petegem
    Abstract:

    Abstract In this article we give a systematic review of the nature and design of earlier research into the impact of Instructional Development in higher education. Studies are clustered on the basis of the level of outcome that was measured, meaning that another synthesis technique is used than in prior reviews related to the same topic. In addition, we address some questions related to the differential impact of initiatives with varied duration, format, or target group, because these questions were left unanswered in earlier reviews. The results of our review provide a guide to improve studies of Instructional Development in order to get more insight into the real impact at different levels (teachers’ learning, teachers’ behavior, the institution, and the students). Some evidence is found of the influence of the duration and nature of Instructional Development on its impact.